HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment Multisite Evaluation

This study is currently recruiting participants.
Verified October 2013 by RTI International
Sponsor:
Collaborators:
Penn State University
U.S. Department of Justice
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
RTI International
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01670708
First received: August 7, 2012
Last updated: October 30, 2013
Last verified: October 2013
  Purpose

The purpose of the Multisite Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (the HOPE DFE Evaluation) is to conduct a randomized control trial (RCT) replication of the original Hawaii HOPE program and evaluation. The HOPE program provides strict oversight of probationers through a HOPE Court judge and intensive probation supervision, including random drug testing, coupled with swift and certain sanctions in response to positive results on random drug tests and other violations of conditions of supervision. The HOPE DFE Evaluation is being conducted among probation populations in four sites and will identify the effectiveness of swift and certain sanctions on targeted outcomes, both primary (appointment no-shows, positive urine tests, re-arrest rates) and secondary (revocation rates, jail days served, prison days sentenced).


Condition Intervention
Substance Use
Criminal Recidivism
Behavioral: HOPE
Behavioral: Probation as Usual

Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Official Title: Multisite Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity With Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment

Further study details as provided by RTI International:

Primary Outcome Measures:
  • Illegal drug use [ Time Frame: 6 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Multiple measures to include percent positive for (1) marijuana, (2) cocaine, (3) heroin, (4) methamphetamine, and (5) any illegal drug on an oral swab drug test administered in conjunction with the 6 month follow-up interview (subjects in the community, i.e. not jailed or institutionalized, only).

  • Rearrest [ Time Frame: 6 Months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Multiple measures to include (1) percent arrested within 6 months of baseline; (2) time to first (and subsequent) arrests following baseline; (3) number of arrests following baseline (variable follow-up period depending upon baseline date); (4) number of arrests within 6 months of baseline; and (5) percent arrested for (a) violent, and (b) property

  • Rearrest [ Time Frame: 12 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Multiple measures to include (1) percent arrested within 12 months of baseline; (2) time to first (and subsequent) arrests following baseline; (3) number of arrests following baseline (variable follow-up period depending upon baseline date); (4) number of arrests within 12 months of baseline; and (5) percent arrested for (a) violent, (b) property, and (c) drug offenses within 12 months of baseline.

  • Probation Appointment Compliance [ Time Frame: 6 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Number of missed appointments following baseline.

  • Probation Appointment Compliance [ Time Frame: 12 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Number of missed appointments following baseline.


Secondary Outcome Measures:
  • Probation revocation [ Time Frame: 6 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Percent revoked from probation within 6 months following baseline.

  • jail days served [ Time Frame: 6 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Number of days served in jail within 6 months following baseline for (1) violation of conditions of probation; (2) arrest or charge for new offense; (3) sentence for new offense; and (4) total number of days.

  • Probation Revocation [ Time Frame: 12 Months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Percent revoked from probation within 12 months following baseline.

  • Jail Days Served [ Time Frame: 12 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Number of days served in jail within 12 months following baseline for (1) violation of conditions of probation; (2) arrest or charge for new offense; (3) sentence for new offense; and (4) total number of days.

  • Prison Days Sentenced [ Time Frame: 6 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Number of days sentenced to prison within 6 months following baseline for (1) probation revocation; (2) conviction for a new offense; and (3) total of revocation and new conviction.

  • Prison Days Sentenced [ Time Frame: 12 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Number of days sentenced to prison within 12 months following baseline for (1) probation revocation; (2) conviction for a new offense; and (3) total of revocation and new conviction.


Estimated Enrollment: 1600
Study Start Date: August 2012
Estimated Study Completion Date: March 2015
Estimated Primary Completion Date: December 2014 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Arms Assigned Interventions
Experimental: HOPE
Participation in HOPE program
Behavioral: HOPE
HOPE Court Judge provides warning hearing; random drug testing; violation hearing and jail/other sanctions for failed drug test or failure to comply with other probation conditions.
Active Comparator: Probation as Usual
Participation in probation as usual
Behavioral: Probation as Usual
Probation officer supervises following standard protocols.

Detailed Description:

The Multisite Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (the HOPE DFE Evaluation) has four goals: (1) Design and implement a randomization process in each of the four DFE sites; (2) Conduct a comprehensive process evaluation to assess implementation fidelity and identify lessons learned that will enhance future replications; (3) Conduct a rigorous experimental outcome evaluation to determine the effect of the HOPE model and its components on individual probation outcomes; and (4) Conduct a cost evaluation to assess the cost effectiveness of HOPE. The RCT will involve identifying in each of four sites a pool of HOPE-eligible probationers who will be randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU). The evaluation will randomly assign approximately 400 eligible probationers to HOPE or PAU in each of the four sites for a total sample size of 1,600 (800 HOPE and 800 PAU). Criteria identifying the HOPE-eligible target population and procedures to identify that population in a timely fashion randomly assigning HOPE-eligible Probationers to HOPE or PAU have been identified. Random assignment will be accomplished using evaluation-provided forms that include study identification numbers and the random assignment that is covered by a scratch-off label. The assignment will be revealed only after the individual has been provided the opportunity to participate in the evaluation and, with consent, completed the baseline interview. The process evaluation/fidelity assessment component will document the extent to which each program conforms to the HOPE model; document the barriers, challenges, facilitators, and lessons learned during implementation to fill gaps in the knowledge base as to what is required to set up a HOPE program; and provide evidence as to the generalizability and sustainability of HOPE programs. This component will also document the PAU control conditions in each site and will assess implementation fidelity of evidence-based drug treatment programs. Implementation and process measures will be collected through stakeholder interviews; observation of initial warning hearings and court appearances; and review of court, probation, and HOPE project records. The process evaluation will also document the PAU practices to identify intervention differences among the control groups and to provide an opportunity to measure changes in practices that could signal contamination of the control arm. Fidelity assessments of drug treatment programs will be conducted using the Correctional Program Checklist. The outcome study will assess whether HOPE participation improves appointment compliance, drug test results, rearrest rates, revocation rates, jail days served, and prison days sentenced. In addition, the evaluation will determine whether HOPE participation changes potential mediators including criminal thinking/attitudes, perceptions of control and justice system fairness and legitimacy, dynamic recidivism risk factors, and employment and housing stability. For the outcome study, administrative data will provide information on appointment compliance, drug test results, re-arrests, violations, revocations, and jail and prison days for all HOPE and PAU evaluation participants. Interview data will be collected from evaluation participants at evaluation enrollment and 6 months post-enrollment on measures that will facilitate understanding of the nature of individual change associated with HOPE participation. All HOPE-eligible Probationers who consent to study participation will complete an audio computer assisted self interview (ACASI) at baseline and 6 months post baseline; a random sample of those completing ACASI baseline interviews will be asked to participate in a twice-weekly series of mini-interviews (telephone-ACASI or T-ACASI). Non-incarcerated individuals are being offered $20 equivalent to complete the ACASI interview. Random drug tests on a subsample of HOPE and PAU evaluation participants will be conducted in conjunction with the 6-month post-enrollment interviews to provide a common measure of current drug use.

  Eligibility

Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years to 90 Years
Genders Eligible for Study:   Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   Yes
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • adult probationers assessed as high risk for failure on probation (e.g., high likelihood of new arrest, failure to comply with conditions) who live within the geographic boundaries of the study site with at least 11.5 months remaining on their probation sentence

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Juveniles
  • live outside geographic boundaries
  • assigned to specialized probation caseloads (e.g., sex offender, DUI, mental health)
  • non-English speaking in some sites
  Contacts and Locations
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01670708

Locations
United States, Arkansas
Court and Probation Office, Saline County Recruiting
Saline County, Arkansas, United States
Contact: Russ Racop       HOPRRAC1@hop.rti.org   
United States, Massachusetts
Salem County Probation Office, Massachusetts Salem District Court, Essex County Superior Court Recruiting
Salem, Massachusetts, United States
Contact: Carol Hartwell       hopchar1@hop.rti.org   
United States, Oregon
Court and Probation Office Recruiting
Clackamas County, Oregon, United States
Contact: Deborah Meadors       DMeadors@co.clackamas.or.us   
United States, Texas
Court and Probation Office, Tarrant County Recruiting
Fort Worth, Texas, United States
Contact: Geoffrey Garbina       HOPGGAR1@hop.rti.org   
Sponsors and Collaborators
RTI International
Penn State University
U.S. Department of Justice
Investigators
Principal Investigator: Pamela K Lattimore, PhD RTI International
  More Information

No publications provided

Responsible Party: RTI International
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01670708     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: 2011-RY-BX-0003
Study First Received: August 7, 2012
Last Updated: October 30, 2013
Health Authority: United States: Institutional Review Board

Keywords provided by RTI International:
Substance Use
Illicit Drug Use
Criminal Behavior

ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on April 16, 2014