Abstract
Objectives
Evaluate the deterrent effect of a program that increases the certainty and celerity of sanction for arrestees ordered to abstain from alcohol and other drugs on substance-impaired driving arrests.
Methods
We examine participant compliance with orders to abstain from alcohol and other drug use via breathalyzer, body-worn continuous alcohol monitoring devices, transdermal drug patches, and urinalyses. We then evaluate the impact of the 24/7 Sobriety program on substance-impaired driving arrests. Using variation across counties in the timing of program implementation in North Dakota as a natural experiment, we use difference-in-differences fixed effects Poisson regressions to measure the program’s effect on county-level arrests for substance-impaired driving.
Results
Over half of participants ordered to abstain from substance use complete 24/7 Sobriety without a detected substance use event. At the county level, the program is associated with a 9% reduction in substance-impaired driving arrests after accounting for the impact of oil exploration in the Bakken region, law enforcement intensity, alcohol availability, whether the state’s large universities were in session, and socio-demographic characteristics. We find that the Bakken oil boom is associated with a 22% increase in substance-impaired driving arrests.
Conclusions
The results suggest frequent monitoring combined with increased sanction celerity deters substance use-involved crime. While the results are generally consistent with an earlier study of 24/7 Sobriety in another state, differences in the study outcome measures implementation choices across states make direct comparisons difficult. More can be learned by conducting randomized controlled trials that vary time on program, testing technology, and/or level of sanction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this article
We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
However, in the specific context of driving under the influence of alcohol, Hansen (2015) finds that graduated sanctions at increasing blood alcohol content thresholds (BAC) deter drunk driving recidivism.
While innovative, the program was not without controversy. The program required participants to pay $1 per breathalyzer test or $6/day for alcohol monitoring bracelets (plus fees for applying and removing the bracelet), thereby raising concerns about financial burden for participants. The program developers responded, however, that participants were generally spending more than that on alcohol each day.
In North Dakota, participants monitored for alcohol use typically begin using breathalyzers on the day they are enrolled, but are eligible for CAM after completing between week and a month of compliance to the breathalyzer-based program.
According to interviews conducted with program administrators in the state, this tendency is a pragmatic response to mitigate the administrative burden on staff, to reduce commute burden for those participants in rural areas or those who travel often for work (e.g., periodic work in the Bakken oil fields in the state’s northwest).
.
All participants listed as active as of the data censoring date were assumed to be participating as of the end of 2015, the study period.
The share of participants that participate in a county other than their residence is small. For example, individuals commute long distances to work in the Bakken oil fields; approximately 7% of those who participate in the Bakken region report residing elsewhere.
Administrative data provided by the State of North Dakota did not include identifying characteristics, so repeat enrollment under multiple participant identification numbers cannot be determined.
According to state officials, these data were the most complete and accurate records of DUI arrests available and generally include larger counts of offenses than FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
Data for calendar year 2007 were not available for this analysis, so we interpolated missing values using a Poisson-based multiple imputation. The findings reported are robust to model specification and imputation method.
We define the Bakken Labor Expansion variable to equal one for Dunn, McKenzie, Stark, and Williams county between March 2010 and April 2015 and zero otherwise.
The cost of each testing medium to participants differs. The conditions under which participants are assigned to each testing mechanism may also vary in unobservable ways. Thus, we caution against assessments of relative effectiveness without a randomized controlled experimental design.
This leads to a small set of counties breaking the 40% threshold by the end of the study period, so we subset the data to counties that either never met the threshold or had at least twelve months of post-enactment data (see Fig. 1). This resulted in exclusion of 19% of the sample.
While our point estimate is smaller, the confidence intervals on our estimate suggest it is comparable to the effect Kilmer et al (2013) estimate for the South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Program. However, there are differences in the evaluated outcome and the program itself that may make direct comparisons inappropriate. Prior analyses have not examined non-alcohol substance use in South Dakota.
References
Apel RJ (2013) Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: implications for criminal deterrence. J Quant Criminol 29:67–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9170-1
Beccaria CM (1764) On crimes and punishments, 1st edn. Hackett Pub Co, Indianapolis
Becker G (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76:169–217
Bentham J (1789) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Athlone Press, London
Berk R, MacDonald J (2008) Overdispersion and poisson regression. J Quant Criminol 24:269–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-008-9048-4
Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?*. Q J Econ 119:249–275. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588
Bester CA, Conley TG, Hansen CB (2011) Inference with dependent data using cluster covariance estimators. J Econ 165:137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.01.007
Bickel WK, Marsch LA (2001) Toward a behavioral economic understanding of drug dependence: delay discounting processes. Addiction 96:73–86. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961736.x
Bickel WK, Jarmolowicz DP, Mueller ET, Gatchalian KM (2011) The behavioral economics and neuroeconomics of reinforcer pathologies: implications for etiology and treatment of addiction. Curr Psychiatry Rep 13:406–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-011-0215-1
Carpenter C, Dobkin C (2010) Alcohol regulation and crime. In: Cook P, Ludwig J, McCrary J (eds) Controlling crime: strategies and tradeoffs. University of Chicago Press, pp 291–329
Caulkins JP, Kilmer B, Kleiman MAR et al (2016) Considering marijuana legalization, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Chalfin A, McCrary J (2017) Criminal deterrence: a review of the literature. J Econ Lit 55:5–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20141147
Comoreanu A (2017) Strictest and most lenient states On DUI. WalletHub. https://wallethub.com/edu/dui-penalties-by-state/13549/#detailed-findings
Cook PJ (2016) Behavioral science critique of HOPE. Criminol Public Policy 15:1155–1161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12256
Cullen FT, Pratt TC, Turanovic JJ (2016) It’s Hopeless. Criminol. Public Policy 15:1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12260
Dawson D, Reid K (1997) Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature 388:235. https://doi.org/10.1038/40775
Deschenes EP, Turner S, Petersilia J (1995) A dual experiment in intensive community supervision: Minnesota’s prison diversion and enhanced supervised release programs. Prison J 75:330–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032855595075003005
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (2019) The Bakken Oil Boom. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/region-and-community/bakken. Accessed 28 Apr 2020
Government Accountability Office (2014) Traffic safety: alcohol ignition interlocks are effective while installed; less is known about how to increase installation rates. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC
Hansen B (2015) Punishment and deterrence: evidence from drunk driving. Am Econ Rev 105:1581–1617
Hawken A (2016) All Implementation Is Local. Criminol Public Policy 15:1229–1239. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12264
Hawken A, Kleiman M (2009) Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE: executive summary. National Criminal Justice Reference Services, Washington, DC
Hedlund J (2017) Drug impaired driving: a guide for states. Governors Highway Safety Association, Washington, DC
Humphreys K, Kilmer B (2020) Still HOPEful: reconsidering a “failed” replication of swift, certain, and fair approach to reducing substance use among individuals under criminal justice supervision. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15049
Kenkel DS (1993) Drinking, driving, and deterrence: the effectiveness and social costs of alternative policies. J Law Econ 36:877–913
Kilmer B, Midgette G (2020) Deterring crime: insights from an individual-level analysis of 24/7 sobriety. J Policy Anal Manag
Kilmer B, Nicosia N, Heaton P, Midgette G (2013) Efficacy of frequent monitoring with swift, certain, and modest sanctions for violations: insights from South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Project. Am J Public Health 103:e37–e43
Kubas A, Kayabas P, Vachal K (2015) Assessment of the 24/7 Sobriety Program in North Dakota: participant behavior during enrollment. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo
Kubas A, Kayabas P, Vachal K (2016) The effects of legislatively-mandated sobriety on first-time and repeat DUI offenders in North Dakota. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo
Kubas A, Kayabas P, Vachal K (2017) Does the24/7 Sobriety program positively influence driver behaviors in North Dakota?. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo
Lattimore PK, MacKenzie DL, Zajac G et al (2016) Outcome findings from the HOPE demonstration field experiment. Criminol Public Policy 15:1103–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12248
Lattimore PK, Dawes D, MacKenzie DL et al (2018) Evaluation of the honest opportunity probation with enforcement demonstration field experiment (HOPE DEF). RTI International, Research Triangle Park
Lipari RN, Hughes A, Bose J (2016) Driving under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs (The CBHSQ Report). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Long L (2009) The 24/7 sobriety project. Pub Law 17:2
Loughran TA (2019) Behavioral criminology and public policy. Criminol Public Policy 18:737–758
Loughran TA, Paternoster R, Weiss D (2012) hyperbolic time discounting, offender time preferences and deterrence. J Quant Criminol 28:607–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9163-5
Midgette G (2014) Monitoring with swift, certain, and moderate sanctions to reduce alcohol-related crime: the South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Program. Doctoral dissertation, Pardee RAND Graduate School. https://doi.org/10.7249/RGSD339
Nagin DS (2013) Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime Just 42:199–263. https://doi.org/10.1086/670398
Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2004) Time and punishment: delayed consequences and criminal behavior. J Quant Criminol 20:295–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-004-5866-1
National Center for Statistics and Analysis (2019) State alcoholimpaired-driving estimates: 2017 data (Traffic Safety Facts). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC
Nicosia N, Kilmer B, Heaton P (2016) Can a criminal justice alcohol abstention programme with swift, certain, and modest sanctions (24/7 Sobriety) reduce population mortality? A retrospective observational study. Lancet Psychiatry 3:226–232
Nochajski TH, Stasiewicz PR (2006) Relapse to driving under the influence (DUI): a review. Relapse Addict Behav 26:179–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.11.006
North Dakota Attorney General (2019) North Dakota Century Code t54c12. https://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t54c12.pdf. Accessed 24 Apr 2020
Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1985) Assessments of risk and behavioral experience: an exploratory study of change. Criminology 23:417–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00348.x
Petersilia J, Turner S (1990) Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers: early results from an experiment in California. Crime Delinquency 36:87–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128790036001007
Petersilia J, Turner S (1993) Intensive probation and Parole. Crime Just 17:281–335
Pickett JT (2018) Using behavioral economics to advance deterrence research and improve crime policy: some illustrative experiments. Crime Delinq 64:1636–1659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718763136
Pogarsky G, Roche SP, Pickett JT (2017) Heuristics and biases, rational choice, and sanction perceptions. Criminology 55:85–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12129
Ridgeway G, Grogger J, Moyer RA, MacDonald JM (2019) Effect of gang injunctions on crime: a study of Los Angeles from 1988–2014. J Quant Criminol 35:517–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9396-7
Ross HL (1973) Law, science, and accidents: the British Road Safety Act of 1967. J Leg Stud 2:1–78
Ruhm CJ (1996) Alcohol policies and highway vehicle fatalities. J Health Econ 15:435–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00490-0
SCRAM Systems (2019) Transdermal alcohol testing. https://www.scramsystems.com/products/alcohol-monitoring/transdermal-testing/. Accessed 28 Apr 2020
Sloan FA, Eldred LM, Xu Y (2014) The behavioral economics of drunk driving. J Health Econ 35:64–81
South Dakota Attorney General (2019) 24/7 Program Statistics
Vachal K, Benson L, Kubas A (2018) Effects of regular alcohol monitoring on North Dakota impaired drivers. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo
Ver Hoef JM, Boveng PL (2007) Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomial regression: how should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology 88:2766–2772
Voas RB, Tippetts AS, Bergen G et al (2016) Mandating treatment based on interlock performance: evidence for effectiveness. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 40:1953–1960. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13149
Vock DC (2015) The best way to prevent drunk driving? That’s Debatable. Governing.com. https://www.governing.com/templates/gov_print_article?id=351031791. Accessed 28 Apr 2020
Warren-Kigenyi N, Coleman H (2014) DWI Recidivism in the United States: an examination of state-level driver data and the effect of look-back periods on recidivism prevalence. Traffic Saf Facts - Res Note
Weisburd D, Einat T, Kowalski M (2008) The miracle of the cells: an experimental study of interventions to increase payment of court-ordered financial obligations. Criminol Public Policy 7:9–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00487.x
Willis C, Lybrand S, Bellamy N (2004) Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for reducing drink driving recidivism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004168
Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Zaloshnja E, Miller TR, Blincoe LJ (2013) Costs of alcohol-involved crashes, United States, 2010. Ann Adv Autom Med Annu Sci Conf 57:3–12
Acknowledgements
Funding was provided by National Institute of Justice, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (US) (Grant Nos. 2015-R2-CX-0016, R21AA022439). We thank presentation attendees at the American Society of Criminology, International Health Economics Association, and University of Pennsylvania Criminology Colloquium for valuable comments and suggestions. The manuscript was also improved by the feedback we received from the editors and two anonymous reviewers. We would also like to thank the Office of the North Dakota Attorney General and the alcohol testing companies (Alcohol Monitoring Systems and Intoximeters) for graciously providing data for this analysis. The views presented here represent only those of the authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Midgette, G., Kilmer, B., Nicosia, N. et al. A Natural Experiment to Test the Effect of Sanction Certainty and Celerity on Substance-Impaired Driving: North Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program. J Quant Criminol 37, 647–670 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-020-09458-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-020-09458-6