Drinking and driving poses a significant issue in the United States. Repeat offenders are especially problematic as they are responsible for a high proportion of all drunk driving offenses and are more likely to continue in their drinking and driving behaviors. This study examines the effectiveness of the Safe Streets Treatment Options Program (SSTOP) in Outagamie County, Wisconsin, to reduce recidivism among repeat offenders. The results indicate that participants of SSTOP had significantly fewer convictions, fewer subsequent sentences to incarceration, were sentenced to fewer days incarcerated in jail for subsequent offenses, and were less likely to receive another Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) conviction than those in the comparison group. Policy implications and directions for future research also are discussed.
AndersonR. B.MaypoleD. E.Norris-HendersonK. (1987). A model for the evaluation of statewide substance abuse prevention programs. International Journal of the Addictions, 22, 917-925.
C’de BacaJ.LaphamS. C.LiangH. C.SkipperB. J. (2001). Victim impact panels: Do they impact drunk drivers? A follow-up of female and male, first-time and repeat offenders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 615-620.
4.
C’de BacaJ.MillerW. R.LaphamS. (2001). A multiple risk factor approach for predicting DWI recidivism. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 21, 207-215.
5.
CrewB. K.JohnsonS. E. (2011). Do victim impact programs reduce recidivism for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated? Findings from an outcomes evaluation. Criminal Justice Studies, 24, 153-163.
6.
DeMicheleM.LoweN. C. (2011). DWI recidivism: Risk implications for community supervision. Federal Probation, 75, 19-24.
7.
DeYoungD. J. (1997). An evaluation of the effectiveness of alcohol treatment, driver license actions and jail terms in reducing drunk driving recidivism in California. Addiction, 92, 989-997.
ForsS. W.RojeckD. G. (1999). The effect of victim impact panels on DUI/ DWI rearrest rates: A twelve-month follow-up. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 514-520.
10.
GordonH. R. D.WeldonB. (2003). The impact of career and technical education programs on adult offenders: Learning behind bars. The Journal of Correctional Education, 54, 200-209.
11.
HilbeJ. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
HuddlestonC.W.Freeman-WilsonK.BooneD.L. (2004, May). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving court programs in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
13.
ImpinenA.RahkonenO.KarjalainenK.LintonenT.LillsundeP.OstamoA. (2009). Substance use as a predictor of driving under the influence (DUI) rearrests. A 15-year retrospective study. Traffic Injury Prevention, 10, 220-226.
14.
JonesR. K.LaceyJ. H. (1999). Evaluation of a day reporting center for repeat DWI offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
15.
JonesR. K.WiliszowskiC.LaceyJ. H. (1996). Evaluation of alternative programs for repeat DWI offenders. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
16.
KilmerB.NicosiaN.HeatonP.MidgetteG. (2013). Efficacy of frequent monitoring with swift, certain, and modest sanctions for violations: Insights from South Dakota’s 24/7 sobriety project. American Journal of Public Health, 103, e37-e43.
17.
LaphamS. C.KapitulaL. R.C’de BacaJ.McMillanG. P. (2006). Impaired-driving recidivism among repeat offenders following an intensive court-based intervention. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 162-169.
18.
LaphamS. C.SkipperB. J.HuntW. C.ChangI. (2000). Do risk factors for re-arrest differ for female and male drunk-driving offenders?Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 1647-1655.
19.
LoudenburgR.DrubeG.LeonardsonG.BathkeJ. (2012, November9). South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety program evaluation findings report. Retrieved from https://atg.sd.gov/docs/AnalysisSD24.pdf
20.
LuckerG. W.OstiJ. R. (1997). Reduced recidivism among first-time DWI offenders as a correlate of pre-trial intervention. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 24, 1-17.
21.
MarowitzL. A. (1998). Predicting DUI recidivism: Blood alcohol concentration and driver record factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30, 545-554.
22.
McCartyD.ArgeriouM. (1988). Rearrest following residential treatment for repeat offender drunken drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 49(1), 1-6.
23.
MillerP. G.CurtisA.SonderlundA.DayA.DrosteN. (2015). Effectiveness of interventions for convicted DUI offenders in reducing recidivism: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The American Journal of Drug Alcohol Abuse, 41(1), 16-29.
24.
MillsK. L.HodgeW.JohanssonK.ConigraveK. M. (2008). An outcome evaluation of the New South Wales sober driver programme: A remedial programme for recidivist drink drivers. Drug Alcohol Review, 27, 65-74.
25.
MooreK. A.HarrisonM.YoungM. S.OchshornE. (2008). A cognitive therapy treatment program for repeat DUI offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 539-545.
O’LaughlinL. H. (1990). Drunk driving: The effects of the Clackamas County DUI victim impact panel on recidivism rates. Oregon City, OR: Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Outagamie County. (2017). Safe streets treatment options program (SSTOP): Policy and procedural manual. Appleton, WI: Criminal Justice Treatment Services.
31.
RiderR.VoasR. B.Kelley-BakerT.GroszM.MurphyB. (2007). Preventing alcohol-related convictions: The effect of a novel curriculum for first-time offenders on DUI recidivism. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8, 147-152.
32.
RobertsonA. A.GardnerS.XuX.CostelloH. (2009). The impact of remedial intervention on 3-year recidivism among first-time DUI offenders in Mississippi. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41, 1080-1086.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55.
35.
ShinarD.ComptonR. P. (1995). Victim impact panels: Their impact on DWI recidivism. Alcohol, Drugs & Driving, 11, 73-87.
36.
SprangG. (1997). Victim impact panels: An examination of the effectiveness of this program on lowering recidivism and changing offenders’ attitudes about drinking and driving. Journal of Social Service Research, 22, 73-84.
TaxmanF. S.PiqueroA. (1998). On preventing drunk driving recidivism: An examination of rehabilitation and punishment approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 129-143.
WarcholG. L. (2000). Intensive supervision probation: An impact evaluation. The Justice Professional, 13, 219-232.
41.
Wells-ParkerE.Bangert-DrownsR.McMillenR.WilliamsM. (1995). Final results from a meta-analysis of remedial interventions with drink/drive offenders. Addiction, 90, 907-926.
42.
Wells-ParkerE.WilliamsM. (2002). Enhancing the effectiveness of traditional interventions with drinking drivers by adding brief individual intervention components. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 655-664.
43.
WheelerD. R.RogersE. M.ToniganJ. S.WoodallW. G. (2004). Effectiveness of customized victim impact panels on first-time DWI offender inmates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 29-35.
44.
WiliszowskiC. H.FellJ. C.McKnightA. S.TippettsA. S.CiccelJ. D. (2010). An evaluation of three intensive supervision programs for serious DWI offenders. Annuals of Advances in Automotive Medicine, 54, 375-387.
45.
WilliamsD. J.SimmonsP.ThomasA. (2000). Predicting DUI recidivism following an alcohol safety action program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32, 129-145.
46.
WilsonB. D.GallagherC. A.MacKenziD. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 347-368.
YuJ.WillifordW. R. (1995). Drunk driving recidivism: Predicting factors from arrest context and case disposition. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 60-66.
