Originated nearly two decades ago in Hawaii by Judge Steven Alm, a community supervision-court model known as “Project HOPE” proposed to reduce probation failure by responding to violations with immediate but short jail terms. Despite negative evidence from Lattimore and colleagues’ 2016 Demonstration Field Experiment (DFE) across four locations, advocates continued to trumpet programs based on Project HOPE's core principles of swift, certain, and fair (SCF) sanctions, arguing that these deterrence-oriented interventions—now known under the acronym SCF programs–reduce recidivism. To assess this claim, a meta-analysis was conducted of 18 studies reporting on 24 separate evaluations of programs falling under the Project HOPE/SCF umbrella. The analysis revealed that the intervention had a statistically significant but substantively small impact on recidivism (the main overall effect = −.058). Moderator analyses revealed weak to null findings across variations in methodological and HOPE/SCF program characteristics.

中文翻译：

---

重新审视 HOPE/迅速确定公平监管计划的有效性：荟萃分析审查

近二十年前，史蒂文·阿尔姆法官在夏威夷发起了一个名为“希望计划”的社区监督法院模式，提议通过立即但短期监禁来应对违规行为，以减少缓刑失败。尽管 Latimore 及其同事 2016 年在四个地点进行的示范现场实验 (DFE) 提供了负面证据，但倡导者们继续宣扬基于“希望项目”的迅速、确定和公平 (SCF) 制裁核心原则的计划，认为这些以威慑为导向的干预措施——现在缩写为 SCF 计划——减少累犯。为了评估这一说法，对 18 项研究进行了荟萃分析，报告了对 HOPE/SCF 项目下的 24 项独立项目的评估。分析显示，干预措施对累犯具有统计显着但实质上较小的影响（主要总体效果 = -.058）。主持人分析显示，方法论和 HOPE/SCF 项目特征的差异存在弱到零的结果。