Back Button

Sobriety checkpoints

Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated July 2025.
Sobriety checkpoints are characterized by law enforcement officers stopping all vehicles (or a predefined pattern of vehicles) that pass through a location. Importantly, the stopped vehicle does not need to be suspected of impaired driving. Sobriety checkpoints are commonly implemented simultaneously with public information campaigns to raise awareness and discourage impaired driving. Checkpoints can be operated by state or local law enforcement. The time of operations varies, but most are conducted in the evening. Sobriety checkpoints have been deemed unconstitutional in Washington.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $27 Benefits minus costs $163
Participants $24 Benefit to cost ratio $163.31
Others $31 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $83 benefits greater than the costs 100%
Total benefits $164
Net program cost ($1)
Benefits minus cost $163

^^WSIPP does not include this outcome when conducting benefit-cost analysis for this program.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime
Involvement in the criminal justice system (e.g., arrests, charges, convictions, incarceration) measured through administrative records (e.g. court records, arrests) or self-report.
 29 2 1078 -0.197 0.094 30 -0.197 0.094 38 -0.197 0.036
Fatal crash
Reported crashes with at least one fatality.
29 6 10556 -0.077 0.022 30 -0.077 0.022 39 -0.077 0.001
Injury and fatal crash^^
Reported crashes that result in a fatality, serious injury, or minor injury.
29 4 10220 -0.105 0.014 30 -0.105 0.014 39 -0.105 0.001
Fatal crash (alcohol related)^^
Reported crashes with at least one fatality involving alcohol, measured through driver BAC or a commonly accepted proxy (e.g., single-vehicle nighttime crashes).
29 4 3545 -0.103 0.044 30 -0.103 0.044 39 -0.103 0.020
Any crash (alcohol related)^^
Reported crashes at all levels (fatal, injury, and property damage) involving alcohol, measured through driver BAC or a commonly accepted proxy (e.g., single-vehicle nighttime crashes).
29 9 9377 -0.074 0.031 30 -0.074 0.031 39 -0.074 0.017
Injury and fatal crash (alcohol related)^^
Reported crashes involving alcohol that result in a fatality, serious injury, or minor injury, measured through driver BAC or a commonly accepted proxy (e.g., single-vehicle nighttime crashes).
29 4 9324 -0.490 0.251 30 -0.490 0.251 39 -0.490 0.051
Any crash^^
Reported crashes at all injury and damage levels. Includes fatal, injury, and property damage crashes.
29 1 2545 0.024 0.028 30 0.024 0.028 39 0.024 0.387
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $26 $0 $20 $13 $60
Fatal crash Total costs of fatal crash $1 $24 $10 $70 $105
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($1) ($1)
Totals $27 $24 $31 $83 $164
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $0 2024 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($1)
Comparison costs $0 2024 Cost range (+ or -) 30%
Because checkpoints are unconstitutional in Washington, we assume the cost of implementing a checkpoint program would be about the same as the funding provided for directed law enforcement. During 2024, the Washington Traffic Safety Commission provided approximately $1 million for impaired driving enforcement. We estimate that the cost of a comprehensive checkpoint program would also be approximately $1 million.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Keniston, D., & Singh, N. (2019). The efficient deployment of police resources: Theory and new evidence from a randomized drunk driving crackdown in India (NBER Working Paper No. 26224). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chang, H., Chang, K., & Fan, E. (2020). The intended and unintended effects of drunk driving policies. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 82(1), 23–49.

Evans, W.N., Neville, D., & Graham, J. D. (1991). General deterrence of drunk driving: Evaluation of recent American policies. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 11(2), 279–289.

Fell, J.C., Tippetts, A.S., & Levy, M. (2008). Evaluation of seven publicized enforcement demonstration programs to reduce impaired driving: Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, and Michigan. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine: 52nd Annual Scientific Conference, 52, 23–38.

Fell, J.C., Waehrer, G., Voas, R.B., Auld-Owens, A., Carr, K., & Pell, K. (2014). Effects of enforcement intensity on alcohol impaired driving crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 73, 181–186.

Henstridge, J., Homel, R., & Mackay, P. (1997). The long-term effects of random breath testing in four Australian states: A time series analysis (Report No. CR 162). Federal Office of Road Safety.

Jones, L.E., & Morin, C. (2022). Sobriety checkpoint laws, fatal car crashes and arrests (Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper). SSRN.

Matsuzawa, K. (2025). The deterrent effect of targeted and salient police enforcement: Evidence from bans on checkpoints for driving under the Influence. The Journal of Law and Economics.

Nunn, S., & Newby, W. (2011). The geography of deterrence: Exploring the small area effects of sobriety checkpoints on alcohol-impaired collision rates within a city. Evaluation Review, 35(4), 354–378.

Stuster, J.W., & Blowers, P.A. (1995). Experimental evaluation of sobriety checkpoint programs. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Voas, R.B., Holder, H.D., & Gruenewald, P.J. (1997). The effect of drinking and driving interventions on alcohol-involved traffic crashes within a comprehensive community trial. Addiction, 92(Suppl 2), S221–S236.