24/7 sobriety program reduces jail stays but counties report net shortfalls, sheriffs say

Pat Helfrich, 24/7 coordinator for the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, and county representatives told the Interim Judiciary Committee the 24/7 sobriety program has grown since its 2007 pilot and is used by courts and probation to monitor alcohol or drug use as an alternative to incarceration. Helfrich described testing technologies and fees: twice‑daily in‑person breath tests cost participants $1 per test (counties keep the $2 that participants pay per day for in‑office twice‑daily testing; Helfrich said counties keep $1 and $1 is paid to the county for administration), electronic monitoring (SCRAM) has activation/deactivation fees and a daily monitoring fee (Helfrich said counties keep $1 of a $6 daily SCRAM charge and the state receives $5, of which about $3.65 pays the vendor), and remote breath testing carries its own fee schedule. “Currently, for 2025, there are 1,379 active clients. 552 are on the bracelet and 117 clients are on the remote breath,” Helfrich said. Danelle Presky, executive director of the North Dakota Association of Counties, and Major Trent Whannen of the Burleigh County Sheriff’s Department described local fiscal impacts. Presky said several counties spend more running the program than they collect. “Burleigh County is probably losing $125,000 a year more than they are collecting in these fees,” Presky said. Major Whannen, who supervises the Burleigh County program, told the committee Burleigh requires prepaid fees and reports a very high collection rate for participants in his county. Presky explained why the legislature considered changes in the 2025 session. Senate bill language drew criticism because judges in some counties had waived program fees and sheriffs argued waiver decisions shift costs from state to county budgets. “If a district judge waives the fees the state should cover that cost,” she said, and added that counties favor either a state reimbursement for waived fees or clarifying language limiting waiver to the low‑cost twice‑daily option. Committee members asked how often participants are removed for nonpayment or absconding and how equipment is recovered. Major Whannen and Helfrich described absconding as relatively common with some monitoring types and said the equipment is usually recovered when defendants are located; deputies may pursue theft charges if equipment is not returned. Committee members asked for collection statistics by county and for proposals to avoid shifting program costs to counties. The committee did not adopt policy changes during the hearing.