[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 20]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 27172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF THE ``HONEST OPPORTUNITY PROBATION WITH ENFORCEMENT 
                    (HOPE) INITIATIVE ACT OF 2009''

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, November 6, 2009

  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Honest 
Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Initiative Act of 2009'' 
with my colleague Representative Ted Poe of Texas. This bipartisan 
legislation would build upon an innovative and promising approach to 
reduce drug use and crime.
  Offenders convicted of many drug, low-level property, and public-
order offenses are rarely given straight jail time; in most 
jurisdictions they are placed on probation. Rather than consistently 
sanctioning probation violations--illegal drug use, missing probation 
appointments, treatment and drug tests--too often these actions are 
ignored. When punishment for repeated violations is finally meted out, 
it tends to come in the form of lengthy and costly terms of 
incarceration.
  In 2004, Judge Steven Alm of Hawaii launched a pilot program to 
reduce probation violations by offenders at high risk of recidivism. 
This intensified supervision program, called Hawaii's Opportunity 
Probation with Enforcement, HOPE, uses the threat of short jail stays 
as an incentive for compliance. Defendants are clearly warned that if 
they violate the rules, they go to jail. Participants receive swift and 
immediate sanctions for each violation, such as testing dirty for drugs 
or missing appointments with a probation officer.
  For example, under the Hawaii program, random drug testing occurs at 
least once a week for the first 2 months of supervision. If 
probationers test positive, they are arrested immediately. If they fail 
to appear for the test or violate other terms of probation, warrants 
for their arrest are issued immediately. Once arrested or apprehended, 
a probation modification hearing is held 2 days later, and violators 
typically receive a short jail term. Sanctions typically start at a few 
days of jail time, served on weekends for employed probationers, for 
the first violation and increased thereafter, eventually escalating to 
periods of months. Offenders who cannot comply are required to attend 
high-quality, out-patient or residential treatment. Those who can 
comply are rewarded with less frequent testing and monitoring.
  Preliminary evaluations show that HOPE probationers have 
significantly improved outcomes compared with probationers assigned to 
probation-as-usual in terms of drug use, missed probation appointments, 
new arrests, and probation revocations. The HOPE program has been cited 
by figures across the political spectrum and has been featured in 
scholarly articles as well as the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Los 
Angeles Times, and other periodicals.
  The ``Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement, HOPE, Initiative 
Act of 2009'' would create a competitive grant demonstration program to 
award grants to state and local courts to establish probation programs 
to reduce drug use, crime, and recidivism by requiring swift, 
predictable, and graduated sanctions for noncompliance with the 
conditions of probation; $25 million is authorized for up to 20 pilot 
sites. Stringent grantee requirements will ensure that the pilots are 
designed and evaluated in an appropriate manner. The key facets of each 
pilot program include the following:
  Monitoring selected probationers for rules violations, particularly 
using regular and rapid-result drug tests.
  Responding to violations of such rules with immediate arrest and 
swift and certain modification of the conditions of probation, 
including imposition of short jail stays, which may gradually become 
longer with each additional violation.
  Partnering with an independent program advisor and evaluator and 
conduct a comparison of the outcomes between program participants and 
similarly-situated probationers not in the program, e.g. positive drug 
test rates, probation and substance abuse treatment appearance rates, 
probation term modifications, revocations, arrests, etc.
  Calculating the amount of cost savings resulting from the reduced 
incarceration rates achieved through the program and determining how 
much can be reinvested for expansion of the program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this innovative effort to address 
drug use and crime by cosponsoring this important legislation.

                          ____________________