Comparative Study and Evaluation of SCRAM Use, Recidivism Rates, and Characteristics

Tison, Julie; Nichols, James L.; Casanova, Tara; Chaudhary, Neil K. · 2015 · ROSA P / Preusser Research Group, Inc.

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 study evaluates the impact of Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring (SCRAM) devices on recidivism rates among alcohol-impaired driving offenders. SCRAM is a transdermal alcohol monitoring ankle bracelet that provides continuous sobriety monitoring. The research was motivated by the need to determine if electronic monitoring effectively reduces repeat offenses compared to traditional supervision, given the rapid expansion of SCRAM use in the United States. The study specifically aimed to investigate recidivism rates, describe user characteristics, and document monitoring system features in two states with distinct program structures: Nebraska (post-conviction) and Wisconsin (pre-trial). The researchers conducted a comparative analysis using data from 837 SCRAM users and 837 matched control offenders in Wisconsin, and 672 SCRAM users and 672 matched controls in Nebraska. Data were sourced from Department of Motor Vehicles records and the SCRAMnet database for offenders arrested between 2007 and 2009. Offenders were matched based on county, sex, age, number of prior offenses, and time since the last prior offense. Recidivism was defined as a rearrest for an alcohol-related offense within two years of the initial "target" arrest. The study utilized Cox regression analysis to assess the occurrence and timing of recidivism, controlling for demographic variables. The results indicated that SCRAM users recidivated at slightly higher overall rates than the control groups, though these differences were not statistically significant. In Wisconsin, 7.6% of SCRAM users recidivated compared to 6.2% of controls; in Nebraska, the rates were 9.8% versus 7.7%, respectively. However, the study found virtually no recidivism while offenders were actively wearing the SCRAM device. Crucially, SCRAM significantly delayed the time to recidivism for those who did reoffend. In Wisconsin, SCRAM users recidivated on average 360 days after their initial arrest, compared to 271 days for controls (p<.05). In Nebraska, the delay was even more pronounced, with SCRAM users recidivating at 458 days versus 333 days for controls (p<.01). The authors suggest that the SCRAM population may represent a higher-risk group, which could explain the higher long-term recidivism rates, but the device effectively postponed reoffending. The significance of these findings lies in the demonstration that SCRAM serves as an effective deterrent during the monitoring period, even for high-risk offenders. While it did not reduce the ultimate likelihood of recidivism over a two-year period, it successfully extended the period of sobriety. This supports the use of SCRAM as a tool for intensive supervision that enhances treatment outcomes and reduces staff surveillance costs. The study highlights that while electronic monitoring does not eliminate the risk of future offenses, it provides a measurable delay in reoffending, offering a less invasive alternative to incarceration that maintains public safety during the critical post-arrest period.

Key finding

SCRAM offenders recidivated at later times (360 days in WI and 458 days in NE) compared to the comparison group (271 days in WI and 333 days in NE), despite similar overall rearrest rates.

Methodology

dataset

Sample size: 1509

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 (6 acquisition events logged).

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.

• dui enforcement