A number of rural jurisdictions have implemented 24/7 sobriety programs that monitor alcohol use by repeat impaired-driving offenders and high-BAC first offenders. Twice-daily testing, where offenders report at 12-hour intervals to law enforcement offices to take a breath test, appears to provide a low-cost method for enforcing court-ordered sobriety and has been shown to reduce DWI recidivism in two studies. Officials with rural 24/7 programs report that alcohol monitoring is associated with benefits, including; (1) identifying alcohol-dependent offenders who need treatment, (2) holding offenders accountable to court orders and teaching responsibility, (3) providing a “cooling off” period for offenders to stop drinking and start thinking more clearly about their life choices, (4) allowing offenders to remain employed and engaged in family and community life, and (5) increasing public safety. Over time, programs have evolved, with changes made to address challenges that have arisen. Refinements to the program include increasing the number of testing facilities and types of individuals who may conduct testing; incorporating additional alcohol testing methods, particularly TAM; and broadening program application beyond impaired driving to other offenses for which alcohol or drugs are seen as related to the underlying offense (e.g., domestic violence).
Given the perceived success of rural programs and the emerging evidence of their effectiveness in reducing impaired-driving recidivism, the question has arisen about the ability to transfer the 24/7 program model to urban locations. Discussions with rural officials suggested that some issues regarding program implementation might be easier to deal with in urban jurisdictions; for example, a larger proportion of the population would likely be served by public transportation. Rural officials also noted a variety of issues that might make program implementation in urban areas more challenging, such as the likely faster rate of growth in the program over time; logistical problems with traffic, parking, jail overcrowding, and ability of facilities to handle the number of impaired-driving offenders; more complicated jurisdictional issues; and complex interagency relations with an increased number of organizations with overlapping roles and responsibilities.
Structured discussions with urban officials from two sites confirmed many of the concerns raised by rural officials about transferring the 24/7 program model. Despite perceived benefits of the program, urban officials expressed apprehension about the feasibility of implementation in their jurisdictions. Some of these concerns would probably be generalizable to other urban locales, particularly logistical issues, such as staffing, parameters of testing, costs, and reciprocity. Some of the constraints were specific to the unique characteristics of a site, most notably the peculiarities of the blend of Federal and local control in Washington, DC. Given that the appropriate groundwork were laid for a 24/7 program (e.g., legislation passed, funding to support program costs, issues of reciprocity worked out), officials expressed varying degrees of support regarding whether their agency would likely be willing to participate. Overall, urban officials expressed a cautious but somewhat open perspective on the feasibility of applying the 24/7 concept to their jurisdictions.