Search

24/7 Sobriety programs largely focus on reducing alcohol consumption among justice-involved individuals whose alcohol use has led them to repeatedly threaten public safety. Participants are ordered to abstain from alcohol use and subject to frequent alcohol testing (e.g., twice daily breathalyzers, remote alcohol monitoring); those testing positive face an immediate sanction, typically a night or two in jail. Unlike drug courts and other forms of coerced substance use disorder treatment, 24/7 does not require participants to enter a treatment program or attend self-help group meetings; however, these approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The empirical evidence suggests that participants largely abstain from heavy drinking while in the program and that 24/7 participation is associated with lower probability of criminal legal involvement and mortality. This evidence is largely based on research in the Great Plains states with large rural populations. Several questions remain about these programs (e.g., optimal program length, possible benefits of incorporating positive incentives, efficacy of different alcohol testing technologies), many of which can best be answered in an experimental setting. In addition to reviewing the existing research on 24/7, this paper highlights additional research questions and ideas for conducting randomized controlled trials with the program, especially in more urban areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The US state of South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program (24/7) requires individuals charged or convicted of alcohol‐involved offenses to avoid alcohol and submit to twice‐daily or continuous alcohol testing. We evaluated the impact of the 24/7 program in the US state of Montana. Methods: Using data from everyone in Montana who was convicted of their second driving under the influence (DUI) offense from 2009 to August 2013, we described program violations among 24/7 participants and then estimated the effect of 24/7 participation on the probability of DUI re‐arrest. To address potential selection issues related to individual‐level 24/7 participation, we used an instrumental variables approach that exploits county‐level variation in program adoption. Results: Among 2768 people convicted of a second DUI in our analytical sample, 356 participated in 24/7 and were monitored for an average of 173 days (median = 112 days). Among the 332 participants monitored by breath test, 95.5% of scheduled alcohol breath tests were completed and did not lead to a program violation. After controlling for individual‐ and community‐level covariates as well as year and county fixed effects, our instrumental variable models suggested that participation in 24/7 reduced the 1‐year DUI re‐arrest probability by at least 80% (preferred model: 86% decrease; 8.9 percentage points) compared with a counterfactual group of people convicted of a second DUI over the same period but not assigned to the program. Conclusions: South Dakota USA's 24/7 Sobriety Program appears to work in Montana as well. Certain delivery of immediate but modest sanctions for repeat driving under the influence (DUI) arrestees who violate alcohol abstinence orders appears to be able to reduce future DUI arrests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To invoke behavioral economics theories of ambiguity in the context of offender decision-making, and to test the impact of ambiguity in punishment certainty on offender decisions. Methods: We leverage a quasi-experimental condition among a sample of drunk driving arrestees that are tested for alcohol use and subject to mandatory brief incarceration for a violation. The treatment condition relaxes a zero-tolerance alcohol rule, thereby introducing design-based ambiguity surrounding the certainty of punishment. We use Mahalanobis matching and propensity score weighting methods to estimate the impact of ambiguity on violations. We then interrogate this finding with complementary sensitivity analyses. Results: When facing the ambiguity condition participants are 27–28 percentage points (84–93 percent) more likely to violate program conditions after 30 days of supervision. We demonstrate that a statistical difference in violations due to ambiguity is still detectible at 90 and 180 days of supervision. These results are robust to alternative specifications and falsification tests. Conclusions: This study is the first to examine the impact of ambiguity on criminal justice program compliance using a quasi-experiment from the field. We further demonstrate the unintended costs to persons under supervision and jurisdictions of laxity in program design, which are applicable across criminal justice domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decisionmakers continue to search for new ways to deter criminal behavior that do not rely on increasing the severity of punishment. This paper evaluates South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program—a novel, large‐scale intervention requiring those arrested for or convicted of an alcohol‐related offense to abstain from alcohol and submit to alcohol tests multiple times daily. Those testing positive or missing a test receive a swift,certain, and moderate sanction; typically, a night or two in jail. To estimate the causal effect of the 24/7 program on the probability of rearrest or probation revocation for those arrested for a second or third driving under the influence (DUI) offense, we instrument an individual's 24/7 participation with program availability in the county of arrest. We estimate that the individual‐level probability of rearrest or probation revocation is 13.7 percentage points (49 percent; p = 0.002) lower for 24/7 participants than non‐participants 12 months after their DUI arrest. We detect substantive decreases at 24 and 36 months, but the precision of those estimates depends on model specification. These findings provide empricial support for applying "swift‐certain‐fair" sanctions to deter noncompliance in community supervision settings. This paper also provides policymakers with evidence for a new approach to reduce criminal activity among those whose alcohol use leads them to repeatedly threaten public health and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]