Program Profile: Safe Streets Treatment Options Program (SSTOP) (Outagamie County, Wisconsin)

This program combines deterrence and rehabilitation methods to reduce recidivism of persons convicted of operating while intoxicated (OWI) offenses. Services include intensive supervision, educational programming, and treatment options. The program is rated Promising. The treatment group had statistically significantly fewer convictions, incarcerations, and subsequent days incarcerated, compared with the comparison group. There were no statistically significant differences in OWI recidivism.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Population

The Safe Streets Treatment Options Program (SSTOP) began in 2010 in Outagamie County, Wis., to provide treatment to address the rehabilitation needs and community responsibilities of individuals convicted of an operating-while-intoxicated (OWI) offense. (In Wisconsin, drinking and driving offenses are classified as OWI, while in other states they may be known as driving under the influence of an intoxicant [DUI] or driving while intoxicated [DWI]. An individual can be prosecuted for an OWI even if they have not driven the vehicle; all they need to do is either operate or turn the vehicle on). SSTOP is an initiative that combines deterrence and rehabilitative methods and strives to keep participants in the community, to help maintain their employment, and to encourage them to change their behavior through intensive supervision, education, and treatment. The goal is to decrease OWI recidivism rates.

Program Components

Individuals are eligible to participate in SSTOP if they have a second or third OWI offense and are a resident of the county. SSTOP is a 1-year voluntary program, in which individuals must agree to abide by the program rules in exchange for reduced jail time. This includes installation of ignition interlock devices on all vehicles registered in the individual’s name; the amount of time a person is required to have this device installed is determined by the judge, at sentencing.

Once an individual is admitted to SSTOP, they complete an assessment in which recommendations are made for educational programming, treatment options, or a combination of the two. Based on the individual’s needs, participants may be referred to programs such as budgeting classes, anger management groups, domestic abuse groups, education, employment assistance (e.g., résumé building or job searching), and/or grieving, family, divorce, or individual counseling (Outagamie County 2017). In addition, most persons convicted of a second OWI offense are court-ordered to attend a victim impact panel.

Participants can be terminated from the program at any time for any of the following reasons: new criminal arrests or charges, violent behavior, failure to comply with program rules, or moving to a residence in a SSTOP–ineligible county. If terminated, their original sentence is enforced and they must serve the additional days in jail (Outagamie County 2017).

Key Personnel

A case manager monitors the participant’s treatment and compliance to SSTOP program rules through at least monthly appointments. It is the role of the case manager to advocate for their clients, provide resources to treatment services and community-based organizations, prepare reports for the court when required, and assure compliance to the program rules and assigned programming (Outagamie County 2017).

Study 1

Freiburger and Sheeran (2018) used a quasi-experimental design with propensity score matching and multivariate models to examine the effectiveness of the Safe Streets Treatment Options Program (SSTOP) in reducing recidivism in individuals convicted for a second or third operating-while-intoxicated (OWI) offense in Outagamie County, Wis., at the 3-year follow-up.

Outagamie County supplied the names and demographic data of all 2012–13 SSTOP participants (the treatment group) and for all individuals who were convicted of a second or third OWI offense in 2009 and 2010, before the SSTOP program was fully implemented (this served as the comparison group). Data from 2011 were not used, because SSTOP was partially implemented during that year and its availability to eligible individuals was not consistent. Propensity score matching was used to create a matched sample of treatment and comparison participants, for a total sample of 692 individuals (n = 346 in the SSTOP treatment group, n = 346 in the comparison group). Recidivism data were then collected from the court dockets in Wisconsin’s Consolidated Court Automation Programs for all 692 individuals.

Recidivism was examined through five separate measures. The first measure counted all new charges, despite the outcome. Therefore, charges that were dismissed but read in and those that were dismissed by the prosecutor were included. The second measure included only cases for which there was a conviction. Cases in which the defendant was found not guilty were not included in this measure. The third measure was for incarceration and included only cases in which the defendant was sentenced to a term of incarceration in either jail or prison. Fourth, a measure for subsequent OWI convictions was included; no convictions for other offenses were included in this measure. These measures were coded as dichotomous (0 = none and 1 = one or more) and continuous. Fifth, the number of days for which a defendant was sentenced to jail was included. Only days for subsequent charges were counted (days spent in jail for the initial OWI case were not included). Because only 12 cases resulted in a prison term (three in the SSTOP group and nine in the comparison group), days in prison were not analyzed. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the outcomes of OWI, convictions, incarcerations, and days incarcerated. The follow-up time was set at 3 years for both treatment and comparison groups to allow for an equivalent comparison. Recidivism for individuals in the comparison group convicted in 2009 was collected only from their sentencing dates through 2012; recidivism for those in the comparison group convicted in 2010 was collected through 2013. For the SSTOP treatment group, recidivism data were collected through 2015 for those convicted in 2012, and 2016 for those convicted in 2013.

The average age of individuals in both the treatment and control groups was 35 years. The majority of the sample were male (77.7 percent of the SSTOP treatment group, 76.6 percent of the comparison group) and White (83.2 percent of the SSTOP treatment group, 83.5 percent of the comparison group). For offense level, the majority had a second OWI offense (59 percent of the treatment group, 61 percent of the comparison group). After matching, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups.

Multivariate models were analyzed to determine which factors were correlated with the recidivism measures, controlling for the individual’s gender, race/ethnicity, age, and offense level (second or third OWI). Poisson regression was used to analyze the effect of program participation on incarceration at the 3-year follow-up, and negative binominal regression was used to assess the effect on convictions, days incarcerated, and operating while intoxicated at the 3-year follow-up. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

More information about SSTOP in Outagamie County, Wis., can be found on the program website.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?