A driver with a prior conviction for driving while impaired (DWI) carries a higher risk of future DWI arrest, as well as involvement in both alcohol-related and non-alcohol-related crashes (Gould & Gould, 1992; Perrine, Peck, & Fell, 1988). Repeat DWI offenders are overrepresented in fatal crashes. Although drivers with prior DWI arrests within the past 3 years comprise only 2.1% of drivers on the roads, drivers with prior DWI convictions in the past 3 years account for 8.0% of the intoxicated drivers in fatal crashes (Fell, 2013). As outlined in A Guide to Sentencing DWI Offenders (NHTSA & NIAAA, 2006), the key to reducing DWI recidivism is certain, consistent, and coordinated sentencing and compliance monitoring. To accomplish this, States and communities have devised many variations of DWI offender supervision and probation programs to deal with offenders’ drinking and drinking-driving problems. These programs focus on public safety, offender accountability, and behavioral change.
Over the past several years, jurisdictions in four rural States—Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming—have implemented 24/7 sobriety programs that provide tools for monitoring alcohol use by impaired-driving offenders, many of whom are required by judicial or court orders to abstain from alcohol for specified periods, such as while awaiting their trial or while on probation. The 24/7 model was initially designed to be used with offenders who each had at least one previous conviction for DWI or the offense of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs. In some jurisdictions, the program is now applied to other offenses, such as assault and child abuse, if alcohol or drugs are deemed to be related to the underlying offenses. Generally, 24/7 alcohol-testing programs require offenders to report twice daily to central facilities (e.g., a sheriff’s office) to take breath tests for a reading of their blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at approximately 12-hour intervals—once in the morning (usually between 7 and 9 a.m.) and once in the evening (usually between 7 and 9 p.m.) over 2 to 6 months. Offenders are considered to be in violation of the programs if they provide positive breath samples, fail to appear for testing at the designated time, or fail to pay program-related fees on time. Because the 24/7 program has been implemented in rural States where offenders often have to travel long distances to test at a central facility, States also provide for the use of alternative testing methods, most often transdermal alcohol-monitoring (TAM) technologies. An offender typically pays $1 to $2 per breath test ($2 to $4 a day) and $5 to $10 a day for TAM in an effort to make programs self-funded through offender fees. Two evaluations in South Dakota indicate that the 24/7 program is effective in reducing DWI recidivism (Kilmer, Nicosia, Heaton, & Midgette, 2012; Loudenburg, Drube, & Leondardson, 2010).
To date, these 24/7 sobriety programs have been used in rural States and communities; however, the program model is being considered for implementation in additional States and communities. The purpose of this study was to conduct a feasibility assessment and gather data on whether the 24/7 program model can be applied in urban locales, and if so, what changes might be necessary to scale it to meet the challenges of more densely populated jurisdictions. This study was conducted in two phases: Phase 1 involved developing comprehensive descriptions of existing 24/7 programs in rural areas, and Phase 2 comprised the feasibility study in two urban jurisdictions.
In Phase 1 of this study, extensive structured telephone discussions were conducted with State and local officials in Montana; North Dakota; South Dakota; and Fremont County, Wyoming, to develop complete descriptions of the history of 24/7 programs in rural areas. The information obtained during the telephone contacts included program activities, resources, costs, offender populations, challenges, modifications, and guidance for officials in urban areas in implementing a program. In Round 1, a statewide contact that was familiar with the program and could provide a broad overview was contacted. In Round 2, telephone discussions were conducted with local officials in two jurisdictions per State—typically, the county that pilot-tested the program before statewide implementation and the most populous county that provided the best proxy to urban locales. In Round 2, structured discussions via telephone were held with a representative from the States’ attorneys general offices and local county officials (e.g., judge, prosecutor, sheriff, and parole/probation officer). Following the Round 2 data collection, case studies were developed for each of the four rural programs.
Common themes were distilled from the case studies. During operation of the programs, which varied from about 1 year to 8 years, the core of the programs (twice-daily breath testing) had remained constant. Logistical issues (parking at testing facilities, accommodations for nontraditional work schedules) and growth in the programs’ offender populations had resulted in minor programmatic adjustments. In addition to natural learning curves, processes had become streamlined over time as agencies and stakeholders involved in operating the programs had worked to coordinate and modify tools as necessary (e.g., violation report forms). Overall, the percentage of failed tests reported was low—typically about 0.5 to 1% and slightly higher (around 2 to 3%) when no-shows were considered. Although most programs did not have extensive cost data, most program officials perceived that program costs were being covered by offenders’ fees, especially as existing staff were often serving as testers. The evaluations in South Dakota found reductions in recidivism for most groups of DUI offenders (e.g., from 74 to 31% for second and fourth offenders, respectively), and one study showed a 12% reduction in recidivism and a 9% reduction in domestic violence arrests. Other than South Dakota, no outcome data were available from other programs. Officials’ perceptions of the benefits of the program included holding offenders’ accountable to judicial orders for bond and probation; reducing drinking, leading to probable increases in public safety and more responsible behavior by the offenders (e.g., appearing in court at appointed times); helping to identify offenders with serious drinking or drug problems as a function of increased monitoring; facilitating the process of drinking cessation in some offenders; and helping offenders remain productive members of the community by staying out of jail, keeping their jobs, and participating in family life.
Rural officials provided guidance for other officials considering implementing 24/7 sobriety programs. Consistent suggestions included the following: (a) the importance of starting small via pilot testing; (b) building the program slowly, using existing programs as a guide but remaining flexible to account for local realities; (c) planning to allow for growth of the program; and (d) the value of including all potentially-involved agencies in planning, both to foster buy-in from those agencies and to plan all aspects of the implementation as thoroughly as possible. Jurisdictions should understand legal limitations in their States on judges, to modify conditions of bond, and on law enforcement, to incarcerate without a hearing for violations of the program. Legislation may be necessary to give officials sufficient authority to operate 24/7 sobriety programs as designed by States current operating them.
In addition to developing comprehensive program descriptions, the data from Phase 1 were used to inform the development of protocols for the Phase 2 feasibility study. In Phase 2, in-person structured discussions were conducted with local officials in two urban areas—Washington, DC, and Fairfax County, Virginia—to obtain their impressions about whether and how 24/7 programs could be operated in their jurisdictions. Information was collected from officials in the two urban locales (e.g., judge, prosecutor, law enforcement official, and representatives of agencies providing probation or parole services). Questions to be answered by the feasibility studies included the following:
1. Can the 24/7 program model be scaled and applied in an urban setting?
2. What are the challenges and concerns of transferring such a program to a more populous setting?
3. Are there policy implications?
4. What impacts might there be on the logistics of operating the program?
5. Are there aspects of program implementation that might be facilitated by operating it in an urban locale?
6. How might the 24/7 program be structured in an urban setting? Will there be substantial changes?
7. What level of resources (staff, equipment, budget, etc.) would be needed for the monitoring agency to supervise offenders?
Officials in both urban jurisdictions indicated a continuing interest in learning about proven, problem-solving tools that might assist them in dealing more effectively with public-safety issues, such as impaired driving. Additionally, some were at least somewhat familiar with the 24/7 program concept, and officials were generally interested in the experiences of their rural counterparts in operating a 24/7 program. For the most part, urban officials reserved judgment about whether such a program would affect offender drinking, impaired driving, and crashes, though most said it was difficult to imagine there would not be some benefit. Many believed the program would help identify those offenders who are dependent on alcohol and assist in putting offenders in touch with relevant programmatic resources, such as treatment and supervision.
Despite these potential benefits, officials in both urban locales were generally cautious but somewhat open to the prospects regarding the program’s feasibility in their jurisdictions. This tempered reaction was a function of two sets of factors: (a) concerns about practical issues associated with implementation and (b) broader concerns about the value of and need for a twice-daily testing program for urban locations.
Responses to the question about their general sense of the feasibility of a twice-daily testing program typically elicited a list of perceived practical challenges to implementation, some of which may be able to be addressed successfully and others which may not. As might be expected, urban officials voiced concerns about many logistical issues—staffing, parameters of testing, costs, reciprocity, and so forth. The prominence and weight given to these concerns may, in part, have resulted from officials contemplating having to operate a 24/7 program within the current context of their agencies’ budgets, equipment, staffing, and other resources. When discussions moved beyond these initial concerns regarding their own agencies’ responsibilities, discussants were more optimistic about the prospects for collaboration with other entities and support for twice-daily testing programs from the public. Given that the appropriate groundwork had been laid for such a program (i.e., required legislation was passed, funding to support program costs, issues of reciprocity worked out), officials expressed varying degrees of enthusiasm about their agency’s willingness to participate. Across the two sites, prosecutors, while noting the substantial difficulties with implementation, expressed the most interest and willingness to use the program if it were available to them.
Ambivalence about twice-daily testing also seemed to be based on broader philosophical concerns about the need for and appropriateness of a 24/7 program for urban locations. For example, officials in the District of Columbia noted that programs were already in place to supervise individuals, both before their trial and during probation/parole. The pre-trial supervision agency conducts some breath testing of its clients, and the probation agency tests for alcohol via urinalysis. Likewise, the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program in Fairfax County provides some alcohol testing of its program participants. None of these agencies tests participants with any frequency approaching twice daily. They are testing participants occasionally to ensure that they are not coming to meetings under the influence, rather than to monitor alcohol consumption and to help ensure that participants are staying sober. Thus, it may have been unclear to urban officials the extent to which a twice-daily program would provide unique benefits in terms of offender monitoring. Although officials in rural jurisdictions often reported that the 24/7 program filled a void in their communities (which often had little or no offender supervision both before trial and during probation), such a program model may be seen as somewhat redundant with existing services in urban locales. Other philosophical concerns included those surrounding due process for program violators who would be incarcerated before a hearing with a judge (this was also mentioned as a concern by some rural judges), and the perceived emphasis of 24/7 programs on punishment rather than assessment and getting offenders needed services. Officials in both urban jurisdictions also noted that the notion of taking officers “off the streets” to conduct testing would be problematic.