What Is Project HOPE and What Are the Goals of The Program?
Project HOPE (Healthy options Promoting Esteem) was a state-sponsored, community-based project that was implemented between the years 2004 and 2005 in the State of Florida (The Florida Legislature, 2004). It involved participants from the Pinellas and Hillsborough counties. The main goal of the project was to break the cycle of prostitution and solicitation by helping prostitutes and people who solicited them to break the cycle and change their unethical ways (The Florida Legislature, 2004).
Besides, it aimed to help the participants change their perceptions about prostitution. These objectives would be achieved by helping the individuals identify and correct the mental and behavioral cues that preceded their actions (The Florida Legislature, 2004).
All the participants in the program were referrals from law enforcement officials: jail staff, state attorneys, judges, probation officers, and public defenders. According to the laws of Florida, people who had prior convictions for prostitution were qualified to take part in the project (The Florida Legislature, 2004). Several interventions were taken to ensure the success of the program: case management, urinalysis tests, psychosocial assessments, short-term counseling, and drug treatment. Also, participants underwent a vigorous process of drug screening and training.
Project HOPE was created by the Department of Corrections and contracted to the counties for successful implementation. In that regard, Pinellas and Hillsborough countries were hired by the department. The counties further subcontracted the program to non-profit providers. In Pinellas County, the program was run by Operation PAR while in Hillsborough County, it was run by Tampa Crossroads Incorporation (The Florida Legislature, 2004). The two counties used different models: Pinellas offered service referrals while Hillsborough concentrated on service delivery.
Who Are the Target Recipients of The Program and Are There Any Unintended Benefits?
The program’s target recipients include prostitutes and people who solicited them (commonly referred to as johns). The developers of the project recognized that the successful mitigation of the problem would involve the participation of both prostitutes and their clients. In the case of johns, eligibility involved a first or second conviction for prostitution solicitation (The Florida Legislature, 2004).
The main goal of the program was to help break the prostitution and solicitation cycle. However, the program was extensive, and as a result, it had numerous unintended benefits. A major benefit was a break away from victim mentality because “both pilots reported that although most johns came to the first meeting very defensive, almost all eventually responded positively and engaged in the process.” (The Florida Legislature, 2004).
Another unintended benefit was access to a support group. The Pinellas pilot created a group that allowed prostitutes to share their experiences with others. According to the project manager, the group allowed prostitutes to discuss their experiences with members of the public (The Florida Legislature, 2004). The group was highly popular because of its less judgmental environment that facilitated open sharing. Proper housing, finding employment, and court advocacy was not among the key objectives of the program. Nevertheless, the participants enjoyed several unintended benefits. The clients were offered help based on their specific needs.
In that regard, “pilot staff also referred the prostitutes to other agencies for help with education, employment, housing, clothing, and food, and helped clients navigate the health care system.” (The Florida Legislature, 2004). Also, to breaking the prostitution cycle, the participants were able to acquire new knowledge that would enable them to live productive lives after the end of the program.
How Was the Program Supposed to Help Johns?
The program was supposed to help John change their thinking so that they could avoid cues that led them to a solicitation. Also, the program aimed to help them change their lifestyles: stop taking drugs, find employment, and understand the effects of prostitution on their families and communities. The program’s other objective was to change their thinking about prostitution. For instance, “many of the johns did not see paying for prostitution services as a crime but as a moral issue.” (The Florida Legislature, 2004) The clients were unaware of the legal implications of engaging in the solicitation.
In their understanding, seeking the services of a prostitute was a moral issue that had no legal foundation. Moreover, the program was expected to help the johns accept their mistakes and deal with their anger. The majority were angry at the justice system for their conviction and exposing them to their spouses. Others were angry about the program’s requirement to pay for the johns’ school.
Was It Successful at Each Site?
The program was successful at both sites as evident from two main outcomes. First, the majority of johns came to the program defensive because they had not accepted that engaging in the solicitation was a crime. However, they later responded positively and engaged in the treatment process. Second, the program and probation officials received positive feedback from the clients who had completed the program (The Florida Legislature, 2004). Third, high rates of completion were reported at both sites as indicated in the figure below (exhibit 1).
How Was the Program Supposed to Help Prostitutes?
Project HOPE was supposed to help prostitutes by addressing the needs that compelled them to engage in criminal activity. The program administrators noted that the majority of prostitutes have similar problems: unemployment, lack of job experience, unstable housing situations, minimal education, and drug-related problems. Also, most have a history of trauma and sexual abuse, lack of a social support system, and children that are not under their custody (The Florida Legislature, 2004). The program aimed to mitigate these common problems that prostitutes face to break their cycle. To break the cycle, the program administrators had to help the participants find lasting solutions to the aforementioned problems.
Both pilots addressed these challenges from different angles. In Hillsborough County, program administrators focused solely on delivering treatment services that were provided based on individual needs (The Florida Legislature, 2004).
Examples of services provided include marriage and family counseling, court advocacy, and substance abuse counseling. Additional services such as housing, education, food, and clothing support were sourced from other agencies (The Florida Legislature, 2004). In Pinellas County, program administrators referred their clients to needed services after conducting needs assessments. For example, the prostitutes were referred to substance abuse programs and HIV/AIDS treatment programs (The Florida Legislature, 2004). This pilot also created a support group that facilitated the sharing of experiences.
What Recommendations Were Made Should the Program Be Resumed?
Several recommendations were made based on the lessons learned from the implementation of the project in the two counties. The data collected from the project indicated that the program had a positive impact on breaking the cycle of prostitution and solicitation (The Florida Legislature, 2004).
However, it was noted that several improvements could have been made to improve the performance of the program. The administrators recommended the clear definition and enforcement of program requirements, the streamlining of contract implementation to eliminate middlemen, the establishment of relationships with important stakeholders, and the provision of meaningful recidivism data (The Florida Legislature, 2004).
Clear Definition of Program Requirements
The success of future pilot programs will depend on the establishment of clear definitions and measures of success, as well as the implementation of uniform reporting strategies to evaluate the rate of success (The Florida Legislature, 2004). The contracts issued to the counties required them to keep records on program aspects such as workload and performance. This directive was implemented poorly due to a lack of clear program requirements (The Florida Legislature, 2004). The law was very clear regarding the requirements of the johns’ program. However, it was unclear regarding the requirements of the prostitutes’ program. Therefore, reporting was uneven across the pilots. Programs need to postulate the requirements for data recording and success evaluation.
The Streamlining of Contract Administration
This recommendation was provided to reduce project costs, enhance communication, and eradicate duplicative work in future projects. The project cost was inflated by contract administration charges. “Hillsborough County retained a 10% ($10,000) contract administration fee, thereby reducing overall funding for its Project HOPE services.” (The Florida Legislature, 2004) The contracting and the subcontracting of the project to the counties and private vendors created unnecessary oversight challenges and hindered proper communication. The county administrators acted as middlemen that hindered communication between the state and the contract monitors (The Florida Legislature, 2004).
For instance, one of their roles was to interpret and pass on messages from the Department of Corrections, which wasted time and distorted information. The effectiveness of the implementation process was negatively affected by the counties’ decision to subcontract the project to private vendors. Interactions were ineffective because of communication challenges among the three parties involved in the project.
The Provision of Recidivism Data
The result of the project’s success evaluation was misleading because the recidivism data used was limited to local sources (The Florida Legislature, 2004). The pilots measured the rate of success by comparing their results to arrest data obtained within the county. However, the participants could have moved to other counties or states to prostitute or solicit. Therefore, future programs should obtain state data on recidivism from the Department of Corrections and use it to measure their success.
The Education of Participants
One of the major challenges experienced during the program was the low rates of referrals that led to delays that could have been avoided. The administrators recommended the identification and education of participants as an important aspect of the success of a pilot project (The Florida Legislature, 2004). The education provided was insufficient, and the offices of the state attorney and public defender performed unsatisfactorily.
On the other hand, the court system was ineffective. Judicial bench rotation and the high turnover of assistant public defenders worsened the situation (The Florida Legislature, 2004). Proper education of the state attorneys, judges, and public defenders, as well as effective communication, are needed to mitigate the low referral rates that were experienced during the pilot project (The Florida Legislature, 2004).
Reference
The Florida Legislature. (2004). OPPAGA report: Project HOPE helped break the cycle of prostitution and solicitation, but had implementation problems (Report NO. 04-50). Tallahassee, FL: Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability.