1 / 42

Continuous Alcohol Monitoring and the SCRAM System Greater Littleton Youth Initiative September 11, 2009

Continuous Alcohol Monitoring and the SCRAM System Greater Littleton Youth Initiative September 11, 2009. Agenda. AMS Overview SCRAM System Overview Differentiating Consumed Alcohol from Interfering Substances TAC to BAC Correlation False Positives and False Negatives

brinly
Télécharger la présentation

Continuous Alcohol Monitoring and the SCRAM System Greater Littleton Youth Initiative September 11, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Continuous Alcohol Monitoringand the SCRAM SystemGreater Littleton Youth Initiative September 11, 2009

  2. Agenda • AMS Overview • SCRAM System Overview • Differentiating Consumed Alcohol from Interfering Substances • TAC to BAC Correlation • False Positives and False Negatives • How Can the Criminal Justice System Approach Alcohol Misuse and Crime • South Dakota 24/7 Program • Colorado Applications and Program Development Considerations • Questions and Answers

  3. Colorado– Local Perspective 34% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related (179) 18% of Insurance costs are due to impaired driving $76 Per Day to Incarcerate Prisoner in Colorado 3,000 DOC offenders to be released in 2009 800 Offenders currently monitored on any given day in Colorado SCRAM Program National Recidivism Alcohol is fueling the criminal behavior 36% of all crime/caseloads 75% of cases of domestic violence 33% of all DUI offenders will re-offend Alcohol – A Difficult Problem for the Criminal Justice System

  4. The SCRAM System

  5. SCRAM System Overview • The SCRAM System is Semi-Quantitative • TAC results enable a technician to reliably determine whether a person consumed alcohol • TAC results are highly correlated with, but not predictive of, BAC • SCRAM “flags” a drinking event when there are 3 or more consecutive readings of 0.020 TAC or greater • Most people will require at least 2 standard drinks to achieve a 0.020 TAC • SCRAM is designed to be tamper resistant and also “flags” potential tampers. Security features include: • Secured strap with tamper-evident securing clip • Temperature sensor • Obstruction sensors • All “flagged” events (both drinking and tamper) are reviewed by trained technicians in the AMS monitoring center prior to “confirmation.”

  6. SCRAM System Overview • Example: TAC Curve vs. BAC Curve

  7. TAC to BAC Correlation • Percent of events “flagged” for 60+ Self-Reported Community Drinking Events

  8. False Positives & False Negatives • Results from Community Testing Consisting of 120 Self-Reported Drinking Events and 420 Days of Alcohol Abstinence Testing • A “true negative” event is any 12 hour period where there was NO drinking and where a drinking event was NOT confirmed. • Drinking episodes ranged from 2 standard-drinks to over 10 standard drinks • Note that most Commercially Available Drug Kits have a False Positive Rate of 5.0%

  9. SCRAM System Overview • Example: Compliant Subject

  10. Confirmable detections include at least two of the following three indicators: Presence of an absorption curve Presence of a burn-off curve Obstruction in place of the absorption curve Drinking Event on SCRAM Absorption Curve Burn-off Curve

  11. SCRAM System Overview • Example: Non-Compliant Subject Absorption Rate = 0.011% Per Hour Elimination Rate = 0.010% Per Hour Subject consumed: 4 Tropical Margaritas in 2 hours From 4:15 PM – 6:15 PM

  12. Tampers and Obstructions • SCRAM detected an obstruction or an attempt to defeat the technology obstructions

  13. Interfering Substances • Interfering substances are contaminants that may cause an elevated alcohol concentration reading in the SCRAM bracelet • AMS provides users with a list of interfering substances to avoid • Users sign agreements promising to avoid these substances • Detecting interfering substances is relatively easy for trained technicians • Consumed alcohol and the overwhelming majority of interfering substances produce distinctly different alcohol curves • Technicians can distinguish consumed alcohol from interfering substances by examining absorption and elimination rates

  14. Interfering Substances • Example: Band-Aide Anti-Itch Gel Applied Band Aide anti itch gel @ 1:44 PM 8/29/06 Results: Peak TAC = 0.229% Absorption Rate = 0.573% per hour Duration: > 31 Hours Elimination Rate = 0.009% per hour

  15. Interfering Substances • Example: “Awesome” Floor Cleaner Followed by Drinking Episode Applied “Awesome” floor cleaner @ 3:30 PM on 2/8/05 Consumed alcohol beginning 7:00 PM on 2/8/05 Results: “Awesome” Floor Cleaner Drinking Episode Absorption Rate 0.191 TAC per hour 0.022 TAC per hour Elimination Rate -0.030 TAC per hour -0.014 TAC per hour

  16. Excuses and Excuses

  17. OK! But does this thing work?

  18. University of Colorado Study (2006) • Ethanol excreted in sufficient quantities to measure • Transdermal peak values are delayed 30 to 180 minutes behind breath peak values • No false positives occurred in test subjects

  19. NHTSA Study (2007) • Performed by the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation • Combined laboratory and field trials – 96 total weeks of wear • Results • No false positives “of any note” • Tamper system performed well • SCRAMNET system exceptionally innovative • Moisture build-up can affect performance of older versions

  20. Approaches to Alcohol Misuse • Judicial • Focuses on the crime itself • Addresses alcohol as an element of a charged offense • Tries to treat everyone the same • Favors punishment • Bases decisions on statutes and precedent • Medical • Focuses on the alcohol misuse problem • Addresses alcohol as a cause or contributing cause of behavior • Treats people as individuals • Favors rehabilitation • Bases decisions on scientific evidence

  21. Which approach works best?

  22. Why Do People Routinely Ask That Question? The solutions are NOT mutually exclusive……… In fact, comprehensive approaches are the MOST effective!

  23. A Lack of National Standards • With the exception of Drug and DWI Courts, there are no national standards for: • Identifying offenders with alcohol misuse issues (no standards for screening, assessment and evaluation) • Providing necessary and adequate treatment for offenders • Appropriately sanctioning offenders, particularly with regard to relapse We can’t expect different results if we keep relying on the same strategies

  24. What’s been missing for alcohol offenders? Source: NADCP

  25. And it all starts with monitoring . . . Key Components of Drug Courts (NADCP and OJP 1997) Key Component #5: Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing

  26. Saving Lives:The Award-WinningSouth Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Program

  27. The Situation DUI-related offenses resulted in 20% of all felony convictions in the state between 2001 and 2005 12.5 % of state prison population for DUI felonies Current methods of supervision were not working 24/7 project was created utilizing N.H.T.S.A. Impaired Driving Program Funds State of South Dakota – 24/7 Sobriety • Scram Program Results • SCRAM an integral component of 24/7 Program • 1,600 clients completed or currently under SCRAM supervision • Total monitored days –   199,097 • Average monitoring period – 124 days • Confirmed drinking events – 141 clients had 193 drinking events (12%) • Confirmed obstructions or tampers 295 clients had 571 tampers (18%)

  28. Alcohol-Impaired MV Fatalities and 24/7 Participation

  29. What is the South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Program? • A statewide program that provides unprecedented levels of supervision • Twice-daily breath testing • Continuous alcohol monitoring (SCRAM) to monitor sobriety • Random urine testing to monitor drug use

  30. Violation Comparison - DUI Offenders

  31. Violation Comparison - Drug/DUI Court

  32. Violation Comparison - 24/7 Program

  33. Violation Comparison

  34. So What Does The Data Tell Us? • Continuous Alcohol Monitoring is an Effective Deterrent • Most of the offenders that are being monitored have spent years consuming alcohol on a daily basis • At least 85% of the offenders being monitored for 120 to 180 days have gone 4 to 6 months without any alcohol • Swift and certain court imposed consequences for any violation improve the outcomes • Specialty courts have fewer people that violate and those that do violate less frequently • The 24/7 model also yields improved outcomes

  35. SCRAM in Colorado

  36. The Situation Jail overcrowding led major metropolitan city to seek alternative monitoring methods SCRAM Program provides intense supervision Emphasis on treatment and letting offenders maintain employment Program self-sustaining to City and County Offenders pay full cost of monitoring SCRAM is most secure form of supervision other than jail Scram Program Results SCRAM used in DUI, domestic violence, and other misdemeanor cases 3,298 clients supervised by SCRAM Average monitoring period –64 days Fully compliant offenders – 2,484 (80%) Confirmed drinking events –264 clients (9%) Confirmed tampers – 492 clients (16%) Overall non-compliance – 20% City & County of Denver – Direct Agency

  37. The Situation College town with substantial underage drinking problem Entire community impacted by students’ drinking SCRAM Program Results Municipal Court worked with university to develop underage alcohol program that includes SCRAM Program targets 18-21 year-olds Minimum monitoring period – 2 weeks Students pay for own SCRAM monitoring Less than 3% of students commit repeat drinking offenses 70% reduction in student transports to either the hospital or detox Significant reduction in citations for minor possession of alcohol Greeley, CO – Underage Drinking Problem

  38. SCRAM Usage in the Criminal Justice System • DUI Offenses • Domestic Violence • Family Court / Human Services

  39. SCRAM Program Objectives • Ensure participants maintain sobriety • Increase accountability of participants through continuous monitoring • Provide alternatives to court system • Reduce recidivism by addressing root cause of the problem and modifying behavior • Decrease impact of alcohol related cases on the system • Provide evidence-based program statistics

  40. SCRAM Program Development • Develop a systems approach that defines primary goals and agency sponsor • Define target population • Indentify funding streams and start up costs • Establish implementation timelines • Launch program / collect data • Review program objectives and goals

  41. SCRAM Program Development Offender Pay Model Agency Direct vs. Service Provider Model • Agency Direct enables broad system wide support and specific program criteria development • Agency can offset initial startup costs via offender pay model • Service Provider transfers responsibility to private companies • SCRAM program responsibilities transferred to service provider • Modeled successfully across the country • Average cost across the country $10-12/day • Daily fee is cheaper than drinking • 85% of participants pay with no collection issues

  42. Questions and Answers

More Related