Evaluation of the DUI Court Program in Maricopa County, Arizona
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This report evaluates the effectiveness of the Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Court program in Maricopa County, Arizona, sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Department of Justice. The study aimed to determine whether the drug court model could be successfully adapted for serious repeat DUI offenders and if this approach reduced recidivism more effectively than traditional sanctions. The primary research question compared the alcohol-related traffic offense recidivism of offenders assigned to the DUI court program against those assigned to the county’s standard probation program. The evaluation employed a randomized experimental design involving felony DUI offenders. Participants were randomly assigned to either the DUI court program or standard probation. The study period spanned 63 months, from March 1998 to May 2003. The DUI court program required participants to undergo a multi-stage regimen including substance abuse treatment, weekly support group attendance, monthly court appearances, and regular alcohol/drug testing. In contrast, standard probation involved less intensive supervision and shorter treatment durations. Recidivism was measured using Arizona driver records, defined as the time until a subsequent alcohol-related traffic conviction. The analysis included 421 offenders assigned to the DUI court program and 397 assigned to standard probation. The results indicated that the DUI court program was effective in reducing recidivism compared to standard probation. Two years after program entry, 4.9% of DUI court participants had been convicted of another DUI offense, compared to 6.7% of standard probation participants. Among program graduates, the difference was more pronounced: 3.6% of DUI court graduates recidivated compared to 5.4% of standard probation graduates. While some comparisons did not reach the traditional 0.05 statistical significance level, a more robust statistical model controlling for prior offenses showed a significant difference (p=0.042) between the graduates of the two programs. Additionally, the operational costs for processing a client in the DUI court program were estimated to be roughly equivalent to those for standard probation, suggesting a higher effectiveness-to-cost ratio for the DUI court model. The study concludes that the DUI court program in Maricopa County successfully reduced recidivism among felony DUI offenders, particularly for those who completed the program. The findings support the transferability of the drug court model to DUI cases and highlight the importance of program completion, as graduates demonstrated lower recidivism rates than non-graduates. The report suggests that while the standard probation program also achieved low recidivism rates, the DUI court’s intensive supervision and treatment components provided superior outcomes for this high-risk population. These results inform the development of DWI courts nationwide, emphasizing judicial monitoring, extended treatment, and rigorous compliance checks as key factors in reducing impaired driving recidivism.
Key finding
Among program graduates, DUI court participants recidivated at 3.6% versus 5.4% for standard probation at two years, with the difference significant when controlling for prior offenses (hazard ratio 0.55, p=0.042).
Methodology
field_study
Sample size: 387
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (86 acquisition events logged).
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | rosap | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-23 |
| archive | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| chunk | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| embed | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-02 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 82 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 24 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation