Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement rewards probationers if they don’t use drugs, meet with their probation officers and complete substance-abuse treatments.

Supported by statistics showing a dramatic drop in recidivism, HOPE has been hailed as a model for other jurisdictions across the country.

But the study published last month in the Criminology & Public Policy journal casts doubt on HOPE’s hope.

Former Judge Steven Alm in his 1st Circuit Court offices earlier this year.

Cory Lum/Civil Beat

The answer to that question, according to the study, is maybe not.

HOPE “seems unlikely to offer better outcomes and lower costs for broad classes of moderate-to-high-risk probationers.” — the Lattimore study

The study is titled “Outcome Findings from the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment.” It was co-authored by researchers at a North Carolina-based research nonprofit called RTI International and at Pennsylvania State University, involved a field study of more than 1,500 probationers in four counties (one each in Oregon, Texas, Arkansas and Massachusetts).

The probationers were randomly assigned either to a program modeled on the HOPE approach of close supervision, or to standard probation programs.

Based on the experiment, according to a widely circulated article noting the study’s release last month, the authors concluded that the HOPE approach “seems unlikely to offer better outcomes and lower costs for broad classes of moderate-to-high-risk probationers.”

Academics ‘Don’t Understand’

The father of HOPE disagrees.

Former Hawaii 1st Circuit Court Judge Steve Alm said HOPE has had critics since he implemented it in his courtroom in 2004.

“Usually they are academics who don’t really understand HOPE or the probation system itself and how the current system is failing many people,” said Alm, who now works as a consultant in Washington, D.C. on HOPE-type projects. “They tend to think any jail time is harsh. What they fail to see is that many probationers are currently failing at probation-as-usual and going to prison for years. That is harsh.”

When it’s done right, Steve Alm says HOPE reduces crime, helps offenders and saves taxpayers money.

Alm said that when the HOPE model is employed properly — as, he argued, it has been in Hawaii, Washington, Texas, Kentucky, Michigan and other states — it reduces crime, helps offenders and their families by avoiding long prison terms and saves taxpayers millions of dollars.

When the program is not executed correctly — say, focusing too much on sanctioning probationers instead of on effective probation officers and treatment providers “all in a caring and supportive atmosphere, it quite naturally is not going to work,” he said.

Alm concluded, “Given the fact that we know HOPE works well in some places and apparently, when not done right, not in others, the challenge for the future is to help as many jurisdictions as possible to get it right.”

Kaneshiro: Findings ‘No Surprise’

HOPE has been commended by many for its success in improving the parole and probation systems. When Alm stepped down from the bench in September, his work was hailed by the likes of Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald and U.S. Attorney Florence Nakakuni.

But HOPE has not been universally embraced, and its critics include Keith Kaneshiro, the Honolulu city prosecutor.

“The study’s findings come as no surprise and reflect what we have long seen in Hawaii,” Kaneshiro said. “Here, HOPE probationers violate conditions of supervision repeatedly and yet are placed back on probation — and remain on the street — instead of being sent to prison.”

In his view, HOPE compromises public safety.

Keith Kaneshiro in his Honolulu office last month.

Anthony Quintano/Civil Beat

The study, whose lead author is Pamela Lattimore of RTI International, was supported by the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Justice Programs, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, though DOJ does not take a position on the report’s outcome.

But the study’s authors do reach conclusions, including this one: “Although additional research is needed to determine whether there are groups for whom HOPE may be more effective (it) seems unlikely to offer better outcomes and lower costs for broad classes of moderate-to-high-risk probationers.”

No ‘One Size Fits All’

The November edition of Criminology & Public Policy that included the study is devoted entirely to the issue.

The titles of some of the articles include: “Confessions of a Failed ‘HOPE-er’” and “It’s Hopeless: Beyond Zero-Tolerance Supervision.”

But there are others, like an article titled “All Implementation is Local” and Alm’s own contribution to the journal, that — taken together — make for a thorough examination of HOPE and similar programs.

Alm’s article pointed pointed to a Washington State University study that concluded that, because of that state’s “swift-and-certain” policy, “participants were found to incur fewer sanctioned incarceration days after a violation, reduced odds of recidivism, possessed greater treatment program utilization, reduced their propensity of committing violations over time, and as a result, imposed lower correctional and associated costs.”

U.S. Marshal Gervin Miyamoto adjusts the balloons in place for Judge’ Alm’s retirement party at the 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu.

Chad Blair/Civil Beat

The main takeaway of the journal comes in the introduction by Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University. He echoes the “no silver bullet” theme of the Lattimore study but also stresses Alm’s argument that HOPE is not merely a “sanctions-only” approach but one that includes, as Nagin put it, “an opportunity arm” that includes a variety of treatment possibilities.

“More generally the commentaries make clear there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to effective probation supervision. Instead effectiveness requires a nuanced and adaptive application of a multifaceted strategy,” Nagin wrote.

Alm remains committed to defending, improving and expanding his program.

“HOPE strategies are now being done in 31 states because practitioners, judges, probation officers, and treatment providers see that the HOPE strategy can be a useful tool to help them to have more success with their supervision efforts,” he said. “HOPE is obviously not easy to do, but when done right saves people’s lives. As has happened over and over again here in Hawaii.”

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

If you have some extra time and want to learn a little bit about the bail bondindustry from one of its most experienced and professional bail agents, than watch this video of ExpertBail Agent James Lindblad’s interview on the “Joy in Our Town” Television program last week.  In this interview James does a great job educating the host, Laureen Tanaka, on the role of a bail bondsman and bail bonds in the criminal justice system.  Additionally, he talks about the ExpertBail Network and what it means to be a member of this prestigious, “Better Business Bureau-like” Network.

James has been in the bail bond industry for 36 years and has owned and operated A-1 Bonding in Honolulu, Hawaii for over 30 years.   To read up a little more on James, check out his bail bond agent “Making a Difference” story.

via ExpertBail Agent James Lindblad Talking Bail Bonds Hawaii Style.

It’s amazing what computers can do as an aid to long-term memory.

I managed to find several of my old folders in a backup of a long-gone computer. It’s got files dating back more than 20 years relating to Eric Lighter, convicted this week in San Jose on 17 counts stemming from a complex tax fraud.

A number of documents were archived with an old PaperPort scanner. The original software no longer runs on current Macs, but it turns out GraphicConverter, a wonderful Mac program and handy tool under many circumstances, is able to open them. From there I can print them as pdf’s.

For example, here’s a list of business names registered by Lighter as of March 1999.

And then there’s this gem, a 1987 memo filed in bankruptcy court by Les Iczkovitz, attorney for the Association of Apartment Owners of the Hawaiian Colony Condominium. It describes what may have been the first time Lighter was publicly accused of substantial criminal fraud.

According to the memo, the Hawaiian Colony was built by developer Eugene Despain and his company, Erdesca, Ltd.

During the period from October, 1980, through March, 1984, Despain acted as the Managing agent for the Hawaiian Colony; as the attorney for the Hawaiian Colony AOAO; managed the hotel pool at the Hawaiian Colony, and controlled all of the activities of the Hawaiian Colony Association Board of Directors. In these capacities Despain violated numerous laws and stole thousands of dollars from many people.

Although managing and representing all apartment owners, Despain failed to pay maintenance fees, as required by law. As a result, the AOAO fell deep into debt, and apartment owners faced the threat of having their electricity and as turned off due to large unpaid bills, the memo alleges.

By late 1984, Despain had bailed out and Lighter took over all remaining interests in the property, apparently without putting up any money of his own, according to the memo. Lighter also failed to pay maintenance fees and other amounts owed to owners, including those who sold their units and were due the proceeds, the memo alleges. In an attempt to block the foreclosure, Lighter transferred legal titles through a series of shell companies and shills.

He also attacked everyone else with allegations of corruption, including Iczkovitz and other attorneys involved in the case on behalf of a variety of clients. One of those who was targeted by Lighter’s wild claims was David Ezra, now a senior federal judge, who as I recall represented First Hawaiian Credit Corp. in the Hawaiian Colony case.

In the process of creating and transferring paper “rights” to the Hawaiian Colony, Lighter claimed to have separated the “air rights” from the rest of the property. Although those claimed “air rights” were declared worthless in subsequent court proceedings, Lighter continued to use them as a supposed “asset” that he used as collateral in many other questionable transactions. These are the same “air rights” that were referenced in the criminal indictment leading to his conviction this week.

The memo concludes with some questions that remain relevant today.

The Time-Share Operation is no longer in business, but no action has yet been taken against Eric Lighter for his illegal conversion of funds. The question remains why hasn’t the State or the Federal authorities done anything with regard to Eric Lighter so as to protect the time-share owners? The ultimate question is why isn’t Eric Lighter in jail? As a side question, why does Eric Lighter still have his real estate broker’s license?

What impact has Pretrial Release had in your county? Have your precious tax dollars been used to make our communities safer or are they putting you and your family more at risk? It’s time you heard the facts…or shall we say, the myths about Pretrial Release. If you are a bail agent you may want to share this information with your local opinion leaders.