Quick Facts

Quick Facts

– The average confirmed positive alcohol concentration in a twice a day 24/7 sobriety program is 0.02 g/210 L. This begs the question as to what the positive threshold should be set in a State.

– Pennington County Sheriff’s Office (Rapid City, SD) was able to run as many as 700 twice a day participants out of a single test site. These 1400 tests a day were tested at a test site that was a double-wide trailer with 2 or 3 testers performing all of the tests.

– It was reported that the Pennington County Sheriff’s Office was able process a twice a day testing participant in under a minute.

– Immediate positive feedback for compliant behavior may be an even more powerful influencer on behavioral change than is the immediacy of sanctions for non-compliance.

– The data that was collected from the South Dakota program for the Rand Corporation studies that have been published to date (June 2018), was data that was created when the 24/7 rules only allowed the use of SCRAM in hardship cases. That is why 85% of the participants on the program were on twice a day testing and 15% were on SCRAM.

– Mountain Plains Evaluation, LLC’s report for the South Dakota Attorney General and Office of Highway Safety, entitled, South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Program Evaluation Supplemental Findings Report, (2012) indicated:

  • 53.4% of the participants on twice a day testing showed up and passed all scheduled tests
  • 19.4% Failed or No Showed for one scheduled test
  • 12.2% Failed or No Showed for two scheduled tests
  • 5.6% Failed or No Showed for three scheduled test
  • 9.4% Failed or No Showed for four or more scheduled tests

Substantial reductions in the rate of recidivism between the controls and repeat offender PBTx2 participants are documented when comparing time of arrest to future arrest in 1, 2, 3, and 4 years. Statistically significant lower rates of future offenses were found for DUI 2nd and DUI 3rd 24/7 Sobriety Program participants when compared to controls at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years (p-value < 0.01). Larger statistically significant differences in recidivism were found for participants with at least 30 consecutive days of testing. For instance, 24/7 Sobriety Program participants with at least 30 consecutive days of testing when compared to controls documented the following differences in future DUI arrest rates after three years of the arrest that resulted in placement in the program:

  • DUI 2nd – 65% reduction in recidivism (12.7% to 4.4%)
  • DUI 3rd – 58% reduction in recidivism (14.6% to 6.1%)
  • DUI 4th – 42% reduction in recidivism (15.4% to 9.0%)

24/7 Sobriety Program participants with at least 30 consecutive days of testing when compared to controls documented the following differences in future DUI arrest rates after four years of the arrest that resulted in placement in the program:

  • DUI 2nd – 62% reduction in recidivism (14.6% to 5.5%)
  • DUI 3rd – 43% reduction in recidivism (16.5% to 9.3%)
  • DUI 4th – 47% reduction in recidivism (20.9% to 11.1)

– Mountain Plains Evaluation, LLC’s report for the South Dakota Attorney General and Office of Highway Safety, entitled, Analysis of 24/7 Sobriety Program SCRAM Participant DUI Offense Recidivism, (2013) indicated:

  • 23.2% of the participants on SCRAM (193 of 833) had a confirmed tamper or a confirmed positive test
  • There were 426 confirmed events (on average 2.2 per offender)
  • 2.4% of all offenders (20) had both a confirmed tamper and a confirmed positive

The findings suggest that recidivism rates decrease as the number of days monitored increases at 1 year and 2 year post monitoring. This recidivism rate pattern is consistent with the conclusions of Flango and Cheesman (2009) who suggest that “it appears that the intervention must last at least 90 days to reduce the probability of future re-offenses”.  The recidivism pattern may be more complex as time passes. While those monitored for longer periods of time have lower rates at all follow-up years, the recidivism pattern begins to rise as time passes.  The data available for analysis includes a full 2 years of data on the entire sample and adequate sample sizes for analysis at years 3 and 4 post arrest.  A complete picture of recidivism patterns at 3 and 4 years is emerging based on the recidivism data available, and that data indicates that the recidivism rates for DUI 1 and 2 SCRAM participants equals or exceeds the control group rates at 3 years post arrest. Recidivism rates for DUI 3 SCRAM participants approximately equals the rate of recidivism for controls at 4 years post arrest.  Thus, the data suggests that reductions in recidivism initially gained during the SCRAM monitoring period and in the initial years after removal of the device are not sustained over time.

In conclusion, the data examined as part of this analysis supports the effectiveness of the SCRAM device as a tool for monitoring alcohol consumption of offenders while the device is worn by the offender. The analysis of the data, however, indicates that once the device has been removed, behavior change is not sustained, as over time recidivism rates begin to approach or exceed the recidivism rates of controls.