97 by xiaohuicaicai

VIEWS: 24 PAGES: 81

									 Evaluation of the
 FOCUS Program
for DUI Offenders


   Final Report

September 12, 2008
  Evaluation of the FOCUS Program
          for DUI Offenders




         Russell K. Van Vleet, M.S.W.
            Erin E. Becker, M.C.J.
           Audrey O. Hickert, M.A.
            Chelsea Kunz, B.S.W.



              September 12, 2008



Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah
                                                   Table of Contents

                                                                                                                            Page

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................i

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... iii

Program Overview ..........................................................................................................1

Ten Elements of DUI/DWI Courts ................................................................................1

Brief Literature Review ...............................................................................................12
       Deterrence ........................................................................................................13
       Incarceration ....................................................................................................13
       Community-Based Interventions .....................................................................13
       Predictors of Program Success .........................................................................15
       Predictors of Recidivism ..................................................................................16

Evaluation Overview ...................................................................................................17

Methods ........................................................................................................................17
      Sample Selection, Data Sources, Collection Procedures, and Measures .........17
      FOCUS and DUI Probation Surveys ...............................................................20
      Data Analyses ..................................................................................................20

Results ..........................................................................................................................21
       Participant Characteristics ...............................................................................21
       Intake and Supervision .....................................................................................23
       Probation Conditions and Compliance ............................................................25
       Exit Status ........................................................................................................29
       Recidivism .......................................................................................................32
       Surveys .............................................................................................................34

Discussion ....................................................................................................................52
       Recommendations ............................................................................................53

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................55

References ....................................................................................................................56

Appendix A: DUI Offender Interventions ...................................................................63




                                                                         i
                                      Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Gary K. Dalton, Division Director of Salt Lake County Criminal Justice
Services for his ongoing support and for allowing us the opportunity to provide this evaluation.
We would also like to thank the following CJS staff for their assistance with providing data and
answering our many questions: Patty Fox, Robert Gaut, Will Howard, Pat Gavura, Dave Nicoll,
and Donna Rackl. We acknowledge the following agencies and individuals for providing
valuable data, without which this evaluation could not have been conducted: Salt Lake County
Substance Abuse Services, especially Cory Westergard and Connie Virchow; Salt Lake County
Adult Detention Center, especially Keith Thomas; Affordable Interlock, especially Christina
Barrera; and Global Drug Testing.




                                               ii
                                      Executive Summary

The Utah Criminal Justice Center (UCJC) evaluated the FOCUS, Facilitating Offender
CommUnity Supervision, program operated by Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Services
(CJS). The evaluation examined FOCUS (n = 311) and DUI Probation (PROB; n = 612)
participants who were on supervision, primarily, between 2004 and 2007. Both programs
required participants to initiate probation, report monthly to their probation case manager (PCM),
pay supervision fees, and commit no new violations. In addition, FOCUS participants were
required to complete the following FOCUS conditions: bi-monthly reporting to PCM, 48 hours
of community service, attend the Victim Impact Panel (VIP), attend community panels, and
complete all FOCUS assignments. Regardless of conditions of probation ordered, Utah state law
requires all DUI offenders to complete a substance abuse assessment and substance abuse
treatment and/or classes as recommended (Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice,
2002).

Data for the evaluation came from a variety of sources, including CJS, Salt Lake County
Substance Abuse Services (SAS), Affordable Interlock (AI), Utah Drivers License Division
(DLD), Salt Lake County Adult Detention Center (ADC; jail), Salt Lake City Justice Court, and
Global Drug Testing. The evaluation results answered the following research questions.

1. Who does the program serve?

Compared to PROB, FOCUS had more female, white, and younger participants. FOCUS and
PROB participants had similar drunk driving histories, with approximately two-thirds of each
group (64.0% FOCUS, 65.7% PROB) having only one DUI/ARR conviction (the one that
resulted in program placement). The PROB group included more people who have penetrated
into the criminal justice system. For example, jail records were found for 86.9% PROB versus
64.6% FOCUS. Of those, more PROB had jail bookings in the two years prior to supervision
(80.8% PROB, compared to 65.0% FOCUS) and bookings for non-DUI/traffic new charges
(such as property, drug, or public order).

2. What components of FOCUS are most effective?

The factors significantly related to positive exit status across both groups (FOCUS and PROB)
were: older age at intake, not having non-DUI/traffic new charge bookings in the two years prior
to supervision, and not having during-supervision non-compliance (having a probation re-start
and longer time from last PCM contact to exit). FOCUS had fewer participants with non-
DUI/traffic new charge bookings in the two years prior to supervision (16.5% FOCUS, 29.5%
PROB) and fewer participants with during-supervision non-compliance than PROB (20.6%
FOCUS, 29.6% PROB). However, FOCUS had significantly younger participants (FOCUS Mn
= 31.2, PROB = 33.8), which is a predictor of negative exit status, yet had significantly more
positive exits than PROB (FOCUS 88%; PROB 67%). This suggests that some program
components of FOCUS are leading to these better outcomes. Better compliance during
supervision also led to better outcomes, which suggests that increased supervision contacts are an
important aspect of FOCUS. In addition, clients who completed exit and follow-up surveys
indicated that their probation case managers (PCMs) were the most positive aspect of the



                                               iii
program. Lastly, the literature suggests that the variety and range of services offered by FOCUS
(such as treatment, education, and supervision) lead to better outcomes than single interventions
(Wells-Parker et al., 1995) or probation alone (Landrum et al., 1982).

3. Is FOCUS succeeding?

DUI/ARR and non-DUI/traffic recidivism rates, as well as successful completion rates, indicate
that FOCUS is having an impact on its participants and leading to better outcomes than PROB.
DLD records showed that 4.0% of FOCUS participants had a new DUI/ARR after starting
supervision, compared to 8.8% of PROB. Although this difference did not reach statistical
significance, it is less than half of the PROB rate and may represent an important reduction in
DUI offending. During supervision non-DUI/traffic offending dropped to 6.5% for FOCUS and
13.1% for PROB, and continued to fall during the first six months following program exit (4.0%
FOCUS, 5.6% PROB).

4. Who has the best outcomes in FOCUS?

As noted on research question two, older participants and those without non-DUI/traffic new
charge bookings in the two years prior to supervision were more likely to have a successful exit
status from both FOCUS and PROB. The occurrence of DUI recidivism was too low to examine
possible predictors of that event. However, the literature indicates that the factors we found to be
related to negative exit status are also related to greater likelihood of recidivism (younger age
(Weinrath & Gartrell, 2001; Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Socie et al., 1994; Lapham, Skipper, &
Simpson, 1997) and increased criminality (Weinrath & Gartrell, 2001; LaBrie et al., 2007;
Nochajski, Miller, Wieczorek, & Whitney, 1993).

5. How does the FOCUS program compare to the DUI court model?

Many aspects of the FOCUS program compare favorably to the DUI court model outlined in the
Ten Elements created by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI, Loeffler et al., n.d.). For
example, (1) FOCUS has a well-defined target population, (2) FOCUS required participants to
get a substance abuse (SA) assessment at Assessment and Referral Services (ARS), (3) treatment
plans are developed based on assessment results and education classes are required for those that
do not receive SA treatment, (4) FOCUS includes frequent, hands-on supervision, (5) FOCUS
partners with outside agencies, including Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office and Salt Lake City
Justice Court, (7) FOCUS uses some case management strategies endorsed by NDCI, such as
addressing denial, strength building, and techniques for reducing the risk of relapse, (8) FOCUS
provides several options for transportation assistance, including bus tokens from CJS, Vocational
Rehabilitation, and the Department of Workforce Services, (9) CJS requested this independent
evaluation of FOCUS, and (10) the sustainability of FOCUS is ensured as a part of CJS
programming. Some areas where FOCUS deviates from the DUI court model are (4) supervision
that includes home visits and required abstinence from alcohol and (6) a direct judicial leadership
role and ongoing judicial supervision. Although FOCUS does not follow all of the guidelines of
the DUI court model, the program has demonstrated successful completion and recidivism rates,
indicating that further modification of the program to become a DUI court may not be necessary
at this time.



                                                 iv
                                       Program Overview

FOCUS, Facilitating Offender CommUnity Supervision, is operated by Salt Lake County
Probation Services at Criminal Justice Services (CJS) in cooperation with the Salt Lake City
Prosecutor’s office and the Salt Lake City Justice Court. FOCUS was developed in recognition
of the need for more intensive supervision of DUI offenders, clinically determined substance
abuse education or treatment, increased judicial participation, and community involvement for
maximum offender accountability.

DUI offenders in Salt Lake County may participate in the FOCUS program rather than standard
DUI probation (PROB) if they meet the criteria outlined for FOCUS, including BAC level,
offender age, and presence or absence of aggravating factors. FOCUS applicants can enter the
program via two treatment tracks: (1) as a first-time DUI offender offered a reduced charge
(ARR, Alcohol Related Reckless) for participation or (2) as a repeat DUI offender or someone
with aggravating factors (accident, injury, etc.) who may or may not be offered a reduced charge
for participation (see Table 1 on page 4). Factors that influence likelihood of FOCUS
participation include: availability of space in the program, receiving a recommendation for
FOCUS from the prosecution or pre-sentence report from CJS Probation, being sentenced to
FOCUS by the judge based on his/her recommendation, or defense attorney advocating for
admission to the program. FOCUS is also often recommended in cases with younger offenders
who have high blood alcohol content (BAC) levels, or with offenders who have a dual diagnosis
and could benefit from increased structure.

Once in the program, FOCUS participants are required to complete all of the same conditions as
standard DUI probation: initiate probation report monthly to their probation officer, pay
supervision fees, and commit no new violations. In addition, FOCUS participants are required to
complete the following FOCUS conditions: bi-monthly reporting to PCM, complete a substance
abuse assessment at Assessment and Referral Services (ARS), substance abuse treatment and/or
classes as recommended by ARS, 48 hours of community service, attend the victim impact
panel, attend the community panels, and complete all FOCUS assignments. Both FOCUS and
PROB participants may also be required to complete additional special conditions that are
specified on their probation agreements. Examples of additional special conditions are: to
complete a substance abuse assessment, install an ignition interlock device, and submit to drug
tests. Successful completion of both FOCUS and PROB is based on completion of the terms of
the probation agreement within the specified time frame (often one year) with no major
violations. In addition, regardless of conditions of probation ordered, Utah state law requires all
DUI offenders to complete a substance abuse assessment and substance abuse treatment and/or
classes as recommended (Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, 2002).


                               Ten Elements of DUI/DWI Courts

The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) collaborated with experts throughout the fields of
criminal justice and substance abuse treatment to develop the “Ten Guiding Principles of DWI
Courts” (Loeffler et al., n.d.). NDCI has created a corollary to their seminal guide on Drug
Courts, “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components”, with sponsorship from the following



                                                 1
agencies: the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Bureau
of Justice Assistance, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, National Institute of Justice,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and U.S.
Department of Justice. The following section of this report provides a brief review of these Ten
Guiding Principles, and compares them to the available research on DUI/DWI offenders and the
FOCUS program.

       1. Determine the Population

The process of identifying a subset of the DUI offender population for inclusion requires special
consideration. Of the utmost importance, is ensuring that the population served possesses
significant criminal and substance dependency histories. This requirement needs to be balanced
with an appropriately sized court and program which allows participants to receive the necessary
treatment in a community setting.

Community Involvement. When considering eligibility criterion, one key criteria trumps all
considerations; participants need to be those “who are having the most negative impact on the
community, and who are seen as wanting to alter their impaired driving behavior to achieve more
positive results” (Loeffler et al., n.d., p. 3).

Continuum of Offenders. Courts vary on the number and extent of legal issues required for
eligibility. Some courts believe that intervening with repeat offenders will make the best of their
limited resources while other courts find it more effective to intervene with first-time offenders.
Nevertheless, when determining the target population, the program should consider the desired
impact on the community and the program’s ability to provide an appropriate level of treatment
for this population in a community setting.

Eligibility Criteria. Eligibility criteria for participation in DUI court programs should be precise
and descriptive. It is proposed that the criteria be broken down into two categories; offender
characteristics and offense characteristics. Offender characteristics define the individual’s
characteristics necessary for inclusion (such as demographics, education, and alcohol or
substance abuse severity). Offense characteristics are related to the offense(s) necessary for
inclusion (e.g., no less than two prior offenses).

Literature & Target Population/Eligibility
DUI offenders are a heterogeneous population, with a variety of needs. It is vital that thorough
screenings are conducted that not only look at alcohol usage and drinking and driving behaviors,
but at personal/social issues that may need to be addresses (Parks, Nochajski, Wieczorek, &
Miller, 1996). Research findings are mixed in regards to the effectiveness of various
interventions with first-time DUI offenders and repeat offenders. In fact, studies suggest that
certain programs may actually have a negative impact on certain participants (i.e., repeat
offenders in Victim Impact Panels; C'de Baca, Lapham, Liang, & Skipper, 2001), and therefore
are inappropriate for these populations. Differences have also been observed in the effectiveness
of various interventions with social drinkers and problem drinkers (alcohol abusers and
dependent). These two groups have substantially different needs and therefore need different
interventions (Holden, 1983). In fact, Gouvin (1986) proposed that alcoholics should be treated
in much the same way as epileptics and should receive treatment for their disease. Due to their


                                                 2
high risk driving, the author also argued that they should be required to provide proof that they
have their disease under control periodically in order to keep their license. Additionally, he
argued that social drinkers, on the other hand, are in control of their actions but have chosen to
break the law and therefore should receive legal sanctions. Additionally, the author argued that
the use of alcohol/substance treatment with social drinkers is unnecessary, and a waste of
resources. Similarly, Wilson (1991) found that social drinkers are more receptive to brief
educational interventions, while problem drinkers have better outcomes from long-term
interventions (such as a combination of license sanctions and treatment).

Findings are mixed regarding the use of blood alcohol content (BAC) levels for screening
purposes. Some researchers have found that BAC levels at arrest are only accurate measures of
alcohol consumption at that single point in time and are not accurate measures of average
consumption (Wieczorek, Miller, & Nochajski, 1993). Likewise, Cavaiola, Strohmetz, and
Abreo (2007) did not find a significant relationship between BAC level and diagnosis of alcohol
dependence. However, Lapham, Skipper, and Simpson (1997) suggested that high BACs (0.20 or
greater) can be used to predict recidivism and are useful for diagnostic purposes. Additionally,
Hedlund (1994) found that the likelihood of being involved in a vehicular accident significantly
increases even when BAC levels are still below the legal limit of 0.08 (0.05-0.07). The above
mentioned findings vary, but raise some doubt on the use of BAC levels for screening purposes.

There is also some evidence that certain participant characteristics, such as age, gender, and
education level may influence the effectiveness of some DUI interventions. These participant
characteristics and their potential effect on program effectiveness are discussed further in
Appendix A.

FOCUS & Target Population
The FOCUS program addresses the need for a balance between community impact and offender
needs by applying a mixed intervention strategy. The court’s decision to allow both repeat and
first-time DUI offenders is one way the FOCUS program attempts to address the DUI problem at
both primary and secondary intervention phases. This strategy is based on the belief that
although the community is best served when interventions occur early on, programs are still able
to have an impact on offenders with longer criminal histories.

FOCUS & Eligibility Criteria
DUI offenders in Salt Lake County may participate in the FOCUS program rather than standard
DUI probation (PROB) if they meet the criteria outlined for FOCUS. Eligibility is dependant
upon the track by which the participant enters the program. FOCUS applicants can enter the
program via two tracks: (1) as a first-time DUI offender offered a reduced charge (ARR, Alcohol
Related Reckless) for participation or (2) as a repeat DUI offender or someone with aggravating
factors (accident, injury, etc.) who may or may not be offered a reduced charge for participation
(see Table 1). Determination of which track participants will be placed on is based on factors
such as: BAC level, offender age, and presence or absence of aggravating factors. FOCUS’
criterion for inclusion and track determination appears to be clearly delineated and in keeping
with best practice standards. More qualified offenders exist than there are available slots in the
FOCUS program; therefore, space availability often drives acceptance into the program. Factors
that influence likelihood of FOCUS participation include: availability of space in the program,



                                                 3
receiving a recommendation for FOCUS from the prosecution or pre-sentence report from CJS
Probation, being sentenced to FOCUS by the judge based on his/her recommendation, or defense
attorney advocating for admission to the program. FOCUS is also often recommended in cases
with younger offenders who have high blood alcohol content (BAC) levels, or with offenders
who have a dual diagnosis and could benefit from increased structure.

                                    Table 1 Tracks of FOCUS
                TRACK I                                                TRACK II
 st
1 time DUI offender                                  Repeat offender/Other Aggravators (accident
                                                     or injury)
Route of Entry: Prosecutor offers a reduction        Route of Entry: Prosecutor offers a reduction
in DUI charge to an Alcohol Related Reckless         in DUI charge to an Alcohol Related Reckless
charge (ARR) for enrolling in FOCUS                  charge (ARR) for enrolling in FOCUS OR
                                                     County probation recommends FOCUS for
                                                     DUI charge (no reduction)
BAC Level: Must be below 0.16%                       BAC Level: 0.16% or higher
Aggravators: None permitted                          Aggravators: accident, injury, etc.
Age: Older than 21                                   Age: All offenders under 21 upon conviction
                                                     must enroll in Track II
Length of Participation: may discontinue             Length of Participation: must complete 12
community panel after nine months with               months
probation continuing until 12 months
Incentives: FOCUS graduates may request a            Incentives: ARR offenders who graduate
fine reduction at the end of 12 months and           FOCUS may request a fine reduction.
often have their charge reduced to an ARR.           However, DUI offenders who entered via
                                                     county probation recommendation may not
                                                     request a fine reduction.

       2. Perform a Clinical Assessment

Eligibility should also be based on a thorough assessment of the client’s functioning across a
variety of bio-psychosocial domains using valid and reliable instruments. The following areas
should be assessed: 1) alcohol use severity, 2) drug involvement, 3) level of care needed, 4)
medical and mental health status, 5) extent of social support systems, and 6) individual
motivation to change.

Literature & Assessment
In addition to the need for an effective assessment, a closely timed assessment after the offense is
paramount. In fact, one study found that having a longer time period between the offense and
assessment date was associated with a greater likelihood of re-arrest (Guerin & Pitts, 2002).
Additionally, it is important that assessments are comprehensive and cover a variety of areas
including alcohol and drug use, as well as personal and social issues that may be contributing
factors or may hinder rehabilitative measures (Parks et al., 1996; Lapham et al., 1997). Some
researchers have expressed concerns regarding the over reliance of many assessments on self-
reported data. Not surprisingly, many offenders do not honestly report behavior during
assessments, in an attempt to avoid additional treatment or requirements. White and Gasperin


                                                 4
(2006) argue that assessments should be based on a variety of sources such as criminal history,
BAC, drug test results, police reports, and collateral interview.

The literature indicates that assessments of DUI offenders often lack standardization and are
highly varied. For instance, a Maryland study found that assessments of DUI offenders varied in
the areas of: length of time between offense and assessment (ranging from a few minutes to
months), type of interview conducted (majority done face-to-face), and length of assessment
(average of 45 minutes) (Arria, O’Grady, Smith, Connell, & Wish, 2005). While there is
considerable variability, a review of 161 assessment centers found that there is some consistency
in the type of assessment tools used. The most frequently used instrument is the Michigan
Alcohol Screening Test (MAST), which was used by more than three-quarters of assessment
centers surveyed. Psychosocial assessments were the next most frequently used scale (used in
about 40% of assessment centers). The Addiction Severity Index (ASI), a standardized interview
that assesses the degree to which alcohol and other drug problems contribute to impairment in
functional domains such as employment and family life, was the next most likely employed
assessment tool (used in just under 40% of assessment centers). Of interest, the use of the
standardized Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) criteria for assessing alcohol dependence
was used in fewer than 20% of assessment centers surveyed.

Many researchers have made a point of discrediting the assumption that all DUI offenders are
alcoholics or even alcohol abusers (Parks et al., 1996; Gouvin, 1986). For instance, in a study of
812 female DUI offenders in a seven-week educational program in New York State, Parks et al.
(1996) found that only a quarter (24.5%) were found to be alcohol dependent (based on DSM-III
criteria). Nearly half (43.1%) were diagnosed as alcohol abusers, and 32.4% were determined not
to have an alcohol problem. Additionally, nearly half of the alcohol dependent offenders also
reported drug problems, emphasizing the need to assess offenders for both alcohol and drug
disorders. Many researchers have argued that social drinkers and problem drinkers need to be
treated differently, and that some interventions work with one group, but not with the other.
Holden (1983) found that treatment was not effective in reducing rearrest rates (DUI or other
offenses) among social drinkers. In fact, social drinkers who received treatment had a higher
rearrest rate than social drinkers in a control group that received no treatment. On the other hand,
problem drinkers who received supervision and treatment/education had lower rearrest rates than
a control group of problem drinkers, however, the difference was not statistically significant.
Gouvin (1986) argued that alcoholics have a disease and should be in treatment for as long as is
necessary, followed by aftercare and periodic reviews. On the other hand, the author argued that
social drinkers make a conscious decision to break the law and therefore should be punished
accordingly, either by incarceration, fines, community service, or treatment (if necessary).

However, some concern has also been raised regarding the validity of screening and assessment
tools for diagnosing alcohol problems. In fact, one study found that may DUI offenders who are
diagnosed as not having an alcohol problem shortly after their offense, are later diagnosed as
alcohol abusers or dependent (Lapham, C’de Baca, McMillan, & Hunt, 2004). Additionally,
Breckenridge, Winfree, Maupin, and Clason (2000) found alcohol-dependent offenders to be at
an increased risk of reoffending. Due to the high risk that drunk drivers pose to public safety,
accurate diagnoses and matched treatment regimens are vital in order to rehabilitate this
population



                                                 5
FOCUS & Assessment
FOCUS requires offenders to complete a substance abuse assessment with Assessment and
Referral Services (ARS), an independent program serving Salt Lake County residents. ARS
conducts the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) to assess both alcohol and drug use severity and
recommends a treatment level based on the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM)
patient placement criteria. Because ARS does not provide any treatment services, and therefore
does not benefit financially from the results of their assessments, it is believed that they are able
to provide objective determinations of the severity of abuse and need for treatment. The program
requirement that assessments be completed within the first phase of treatment is also in keeping
with best practice guidelines, allowing for the treatment plan to be informed by an accurate
assessment. FOCUS probation case managers (PCMs) conduct informal assessments at intake,
asking the offender about their offense, drinking history, experience with depression, and other
issues. They also address the offender’s motivation to change at this time. No criminogenic risk
assessments, such as the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R), are conducted with
participants.

       3. Develop the Treatment Plan

Offenders being treated in DUI courts may have co-morbid disorders of alcoholism with other
substance dependencies and/or mental illnesses, as well as poor impulse control and other
behavioral problems that contribute to criminality. Multi-systemic, empirically supported, and
individualized interventions are recommended with these populations.

The Literature & Treatment
Findings on the effectiveness of alcohol and substance abuse treatment with DUI offenders are
promising, but are as varied as the programs they are evaluating. A recent study tracking DUI
offenders in Maryland showed that problem drinkers who attended a certified alcohol treatment
program after their first offense were significantly less likely to be rearrested when compared to
offenders who did not received substance abuse treatment (only 7% of treated offenders re-
offended, compared to 19% of DUI offenders who received no treatment) (Arria et al., 2005).
For additional information on the effectiveness of various treatment modalities, educational
programs, and Victim Impact Panels (VIPs) with DUI offenders, see Appendix A.

FOCUS & Treatment
As stated in the program’s objectives, an emphasis on education and treatment for alcohol
use/abuse is of the utmost importance to FOCUS participation. One of the ways the program
integrates treatment and education into participation is by requiring that participants attend
alcohol/substance abuse classes. At a minimum, clients are required to attend the Prime for Life
alcohol education course. Additionally, the program requires that participants attend substance
abuse treatment, when recommended by ARS. Clients who are required to attend substance
abuse treatment as a result of their ARS assessment are not required to attend Prime for Life
classes.




                                                  6
       4. Supervise the Offender

Because DUI offenses present a significant public safety risk, close monitoring of the offender
by the court, treatment providers, and probation officers is essential to safe rehabilitation within
the community. As such, the supervision of DUI offenders and the speed of responses to
violations may need to be stricter than levels necessary for other types of offenders. Strategies
for providing adequate supervision include the following:

Supervision in the Community. Court supervisors should make regular home visits to observe the
offender in their own environment. Information should be gathered about the positive and
negative behaviors and life circumstances that contribute to recovery; this is done in hopes of
providing appropriate consequences and rewards (such as praise). Some techniques for providing
intensive community supervision include: ignition interlock devices (IID), car impounds,
reviewing dosage records for individuals prescribed medication (such as Naltrexone), and drivers
license suspension.

Screening and Risk Assessment. Alcohol abuse presents a difficult challenge for recovery
because it is often considered socially acceptable and legally sanctioned, which can lead to
increased denial of alcohol problems. Additionally, some individuals may underreport alcohol
consumption because they do not believe they have a problem with alcohol, and view their DUI
charge as the result of bad luck. All of these factors make adequate screening and assessments
paramount. Furthermore, all barriers and strengths to recovery should be used to estimate
offenders’ risk for reoffending. Scales such as the LSI-R (Level of Service Inventory – Revised)
have been proven useful in this estimation.

Testing. Due to the short half-life of alcohol, frequent and random drug testing is essential to
monitor abstinence. To accomplish this, monitors should use breath testing equipment at
unexpected times such as paydays and shortly after making the last house check (to catch the
“celebration” syndrome). Monitors should also look for physical or other signs of alcohol use.
Additionally, offenders should be tested every time they come in contact with court, treatment,
or probation providers.

Court Orders. Court orders should be clear and concise while sufficiently detailed to avoid
loopholes in contract agreements. Court orders should also outline the strict requirement that no
drugs or alcohol are permitted, delineate the court’s rights for detainment, and provide consent
for release of information to all treatment providers. Court orders can also be detailed to the
point that a specific curfew is mandated and certain at-risk locations and peers are restricted.

Court Contacts. Offenders should have regular appearances before the court. This allows for
rapport building between the offender and court officials. Court appearances also provide the
opportunity to provide verbal encouragement and praise while “checking in” on at-risk
behaviors. Although the literature on the relationship between court appearances and outcomes
(graduation and recidivism) is lacking, some have highlighted the importance of client/judge
interactions and the role it plays in recovery (NADCP, 1997; Tauber & Snavely, 1999).




                                                  7
The Literature & Supervision
As was mentioned earlier, DUI offender interventions include a variety of methods such as
probation, ignition interlock devices (IID), and drug/alcohol testing to control the behavior of
their participants. Additional information regarding the effectiveness of these sanctions is
provided in Appendix A.

FOCUS & Supervision
The FOCUS program provides increased supervision compared to traditional probation for DUI
offenders. One aspect of the FOCUS supervision protocol calls for continual face-to-face
monitoring. While this monitoring does occur, it is conducted by the probation case managers
(PCM), rather than the judge. For the majority of time that offenders are on supervision, they are
required to meet, in person, with their PCM at least twice per month in order to report progress.
Near the final stages of supervision, this can be decreased to once per month if progress is
deemed sufficient. No home visits are conducted with FOCUS participants. A substitute for
regular judicial reviews is monthly attendance at a community panel, where the offender reports
their progress to a group of concerned community volunteers. Although regular judicial reviews
are not scheduled as part of the program, violations of probation can result in an order to show
cause (OSC) or bench warrant (BW) hearing before the judge. Lastly, FOCUS probation
agreements can include additional supervision efforts such as installing ignition interlock devices
(IID) and random drug testing. Increased “freedom” is provided to participants as a reward for
continual progress and advancement in phases.

FOCUS & Court Orders
The FOCUS contract agreement clearly delineates the requirements for program completion and
continued participation. Complete abstinence from alcohol is not a standard requirement, but can
be added as a condition of participation. Approximately 37% of FOCUS participants are required
to abstain from all alcohol use while in the program. This is well below the NDCI
recommendation of complete abstinence for all DUI court participants.

       5. Forge Agency, Organization, and Community Partnerships

It is essential for DUI courts to seek support and collaboration though organizations, agencies,
and community partnerships. Such partnerships will provide financial, political, and direct
support, while increasing treatment resources and the credibility of the program. A strong
coalition is also imperative given that public safety of DUI courts is often associated with
misinformation, which can be devastating to a court. There are various models and strategies for
developing effective coalitions, however, the model recommended by the National Drug Court
Institute as the best for the DUI court setting is the Partner Model. The three basic models of
developing a coalition are listed below:

       1) Endorsement Model - basing supports and efforts on a list of endorsees who may
       lend credibility
       2) Associate Model - individuals take an active role in networking, but one person or
       organization is responsible for making decisions, with occasional meetings to inform
       members




                                                 8
       3) Partner Model - shared power and active participation by partners including various
       groups and volunteers working closely together


FOCUS & Partnerships
The FOCUS program relies on a partnership between key players and stakeholders such as the
Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office, the Salt Lake City Justice Court, and Salt Lake County
Criminal Justice Services. These strong partnerships likely enable the program to achieve a
greater community impact while ensuring sustainability.

       6. Take a Judicial Leadership Role

As the leader of the DUI court, selecting a judge with the philosophy and decision making skills
to lead the DUI team is imperative. Above all things, the judge must endorse the philosophy that
the DUI offenders are in need of rehabilitation; not punishment. The judge should also be
knowledgeable of daily operations of the DUI court, addictive disorders, and cultural
considerations of the population served. Due to the relative power that the judge holds, it is also
important that he or she engage in important tasks, such as outreach in the community, to sustain
the court. The judge should also be responsible for considering the financial status of the DUI
court and require that all participants, who are capable of doing so, pay for the services they
receive. Ultimately, the judge is at the forefront of the team and should ensure that the program
continues to strive towards their goals of providing immediate intervention, participant
accountability, enhanced supervision, and prolonged counseling and treatment to DUI offenders.

FOCUS & Judicial Role
The judicial role in the FOCUS program is less “hands-on” than the judicial role suggested for
DUI courts. Nonetheless, the Salt Lake City judges that sentence DUI offenders to FOCUS
ascribe to several of the principles recommended for DUI court judges, including: endorsing
rehabilitation and treatment and having considerable knowledge about the FOCUS program, its
operations, and addictive disorders. As the role of the judge in the FOCUS program is primarily
to sentence offenders to the program and provide judicial oversight in instances of
noncompliance (Order to Show Cause or Bench Warrant hearings), the judges do not engage in
outreach to the community and are not responsible for the financial status of the program or its
goals and operations.

       7. Develop Case Management Strategies

Case management is essential for collaboration between the treatment and court team. Case
managers ensure that participants are linked to services and monitored during service utilization.
Case managers also have the task of gathering valuable observation and assessment information
and relaying this information to court staff.
Case Management Functions. There are five core functions of case management in a DUI court
setting: 1) assessment, 2) planning, 3) linking, 4) monitoring, and 5) advocacy. Within these
functions, case managers must ensure that case plans, AOD test results, and treatment and
supervision data are addressed in a timely and routine manner.




                                                 9
Case Management Specific to Alcoholism. Due to the social acceptability of alcohol use,
offenders of alcohol abuse are more likely to have deep seated denial of their problem when
compared to illicit drug users. This makes the task of case management increasingly important.
To this end, case managers should devote initial efforts to addressing the offender’s denial while
helping them advance beyond this phase. Critical in this effort is helping the offender maintain
advancements, as acceptance of the problem is often a cyclical process. Additionally,
participants need be constantly reminded of the abstinence-only requirement of the program.
Team members must maintain a constant focus on ego-building and other strength development
approaches throughout the treatment process in order to help the offender maintain successes. A
provision of this tailored type of case management clearly highlights the essential component of
case management in DUI offender rehabilitation.

Team Member Functions. All members of the DUI team are responsible for assisting case
managers by providing treatment and relaying all pertinent progress reports to case managers in a
timely manner. Additionally court monitors should provide compliance reports based on home,
job, or other collateral contacts. As part of the treatment team, the defense attorney should be
used as the starting point of the case management process. Offenders typically view their
attorneys as influential and trustworthy. As a result, defense attorneys are in a unique position to
conduct informal screenings for alcohol abuse and encourage their clients to seek further
treatment when necessary.

FOCUS & Case Management
The FOCUS program places a great emphasis on the role of case management in the recovery of
alcoholics. Participants are required to meet face-to-face with their probation case manager
(PCM) twice per month for the majority of the time they are on supervision. It can decrease to
once per month near the end of supervision if progress is sufficient. These meetings create an
opportunity for PCMs to address important issues, such as denial, strength building, and
techniques for reducing the risk of relapse. PCMs review drug test results and treatment progress
with participants at their regular meetings, as well as problem-solve any transportation or
housing issues the participant is experiencing.

       8. Address Transportation Issues

The license revocation of DUI offenders presents DUI court with a significant challenge that is
not as prevalent in other problem-solving courts. Because the majority of defendants will likely
be without a license the entire length of DUI court participation (due to previous charges,
violations, etc), it is important that DUI courts allow absolutely no driving of a vehicle without a
valid driver’s license, regardless of the circumstances.

Transportation of those in Custody. The need for transportation is compounded when defendants
are still in custody. Offenders will need to be transported to and from court hearings, medication
evaluations (e.g., for those taking Naltrexone), and treatment facilities. It is recommended that
for this purpose, DUI courts have a van or advocate for a temporary release from jail, so that a
“third party custodian” can accompany these incarcerated participants to the necessary
appointments.




                                                 10
Transportation for all other defendants. Although the majority of participants will be living in
the community, many of these individuals will still be in need of transportation in order to attend
required appointments such as court hearings, medication evaluations, and treatment meetings.
The role of the court is not to provide participants with transportation, but to empower them to
solve their own transportation problems. This is usually resolved through local transportation and
family, but often requires assistance and coordination through the case manager. While it is
important that the offender take responsibility for their own recovery, the courts must consider
the availability of transportation within the community and provide bus passes or other
provisions when necessary.

Issuing Limited Drivers Licenses. One way to motivate offenders to participate in DUI Court is
to establish a policy and procedure for offenders to obtain a limited drivers license (for driving to
and from work) upon completion of the DUI Court. Requirements for earning back a license
should include minimal DMV requirements, such as passing a written test, as well as strictly
defined DUI Court requirements. Additionally, the provision of a limited driver’s license upon
successful completion of the program would require supervision of these drivers by the courts
post-release from the program. Due to the added burden and responsibility associated with the
issuance of limited driver’s licenses, this option may not be feasible for many DUI Courts.

FOCUS & Transportation
Several options exist for FOCUS participants to receive assistance with transportation. FOCUS
staff estimate that about one-quarter of participants are without licenses while in the program.
For those individuals, options for bus tokens include funding from CJS, Vocational
Rehabilitation, and the Department of Workforce Services. Probation case managers (PCMs)
make an effort to inform clients of their transportation options and put them in touch with these
resources.

       9. Evaluate the Program

An effective evaluation should answer the following questions: 1) what client demographics
have the best outcomes, 2) what types of interventions lead to the most improved outcomes, and
3) given participant characteristics, what types of interventions are best. In answering these
questions, a number of variables should be measured and tested. They include jurisdictional
variables, participant risk, supervision variables, and treatment variables.

Once all program-related variables are assessed, evaluations should seek to test participants’
performance on both short and long term outcomes. Short term outcomes should report on
client’s performance while participating in the court. Court hearing attendance is a good example
of a short term outcome. Long term outcomes, which are typically of greatest interest to funders
and stakeholders, should seek to demonstrate the impact the DUI Court had on participants
across a number of dimensions. Long term outcomes for DUI Courts often include analysis of
DUI recidivism rates and determinations of the cost effectiveness or cost-benefit of such a
program.

Gathering the Best Data. Evaluations gather the best data when they consider all program
stakeholders and gather data conducive to their relative interest. For instance, legislators and



                                                 11
funders will likely be interested in cost effectiveness. Funders will also want courts to prove that
their services are unique and not a duplication of services. On the other hand, political officials
may be more interested in learning about the community’s level of approval and support for the
program. Thus, evaluations should assess all outcomes of interest across all stakeholders.

       10. Ensure a Sustainable Program

Careful planning is the first step to ensuring sustainability of a program. Courts should clearly
decide what type of model or program approach will be initiated (e.g., a DUI pilot program
compared to a blended DUI/Drug Court model). Courts also need to effectively plan for the
acquisition of adequate funding sources. For specific examples of how various problem-solving
courts, including DUI Courts, around the country have addressed issues surrounding
sustainability see Reilly and Pierre-Lawson, 2008.

Resources for Funding. There are numerous sources for securing funding. A non-exhaustive list
includes: state funding via grants, Medicaid, county and municipality funding, client fees,
fundraising, non-profit affiliations, local citizen’s organizations (e.g., Rotary Club and Elks
Lodge), foundations and community coalitions (e.g., citizen’s counsels and anti-drug coalitions),
and large businesses (e.g., Wal-Mart).

Partnering. Inter-service collaboration can provide resources and political and community
support for a program. Partnering is often employed when agencies are working toward a similar
mission or to provide in-kind services, such as staff, to a program. DUI courts should seek
collaboration with the following partners: state agencies (e.g., the State Department of Health
may assist in determinations of Medicaid eligibility), law enforcement and probation officials,
treatment providers, community organizations, and the local media.

Policy Sustainability. DUI Courts should ultimately seek to be recognized as a necessity for DUI
offender treatment. As such, the program could receive a number of financial and agency
resources key to long-term sustainability. To this end, courts should seek state and local
involvement through an administrative authority or other official whose part in the court is to
oversee and coordinate best-practice standards in the court.

Team Commitment. One of the most central tenets to sustainability of a DUI Court is ensuring
ongoing commitment of the members of the multidisciplinary team. Team member commitment
can be strengthened by improving employee satisfaction and providing additional/ongoing
training, support, and encouragement.


                                     Brief Literature Review

A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effectiveness of various interventions
with DUI offenders. This review provides the briefest overview of findings on the effectiveness
of the most popular interventions for DUI offenders. A more thorough review of the literature is
provided in Appendix A of this report.




                                                 12
Deterrence

There are four main purposes of criminal punishment: incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation,
and deterrence. Laws created to address drunk driving are based on either incapacitation (e.g.,
mandatory jail time) or deterrence (either specific or general). General deterrence is aimed at the
public (e.g., media campaigns, publicized check points) and specific deterrence is aimed at
reducing the likelihood that an individual will reoffend in the future (e.g., license suspensions,
substance abuse treatment). In order for specific deterrence to be effective, punishments must be
swift, certain, and severe enough to discourage future criminal acts (Becccaria, 1764/1963). One
of the greatest challenges posed to the deterrence of drunk driving is the low likelihood of
detection; estimates of likelihood of detection range from one in 100 to one in 1000 (Beitel,
Sharp, & Glauz, 2000; Ross & Gusfield, 1992). Another challenge for deterring drinking and
driving is that much of the general public believes that not all DUI offenders are severely
punished, and that many offenders are never convicted. As long as the public perceives detection
and punishment for drinking and driving as unlikely, general deterrence measures will continue
to be ineffective at reducing drinking and driving (Nichols & Ross, 1990; Ross, 1993).

Incarceration

A major concern regarding the use of jail with DUI offenders has to do with the scarcity of jail
resources and high costs associated with incarceration. In addition to the exorbitant costs of
incarceration, there is a growing body of research showing jail is ineffective in deterring drinking
and driving (Ross, McCleary, & LaFree, 1993; Grube & Kearney, 1983), and some studies have
found that the use of jail may actually increase recidivism when used with first-time and less
criminally involved offenders (DeYoung, 1997; Socie, Wagner, & Hopkins, 1994). Only one
study was located that found a moderate deterrent effect of jail on chronic DUI offenders (4 or
more convictions; Weinrath and Gartrell, 2001). This study also determined an optimal jail
sentence length for chronic DUI offenders of five to six months. As a result of the high costs of
incarceration and evidence that jail is ineffective in deterring drinking and driving, many
jurisdictions have shifted their focus toward community-based alternatives to incarceration.

Community-Based Interventions

DUI Courts. Taken as a whole, the literature indicates that the effectiveness of DUI Courts is, at
best, mixed. Evaluations of individual courts suggest that DUI Courts have demonstrated
decreased recidivism and increase psychosocial functioning among participants (Alaska Judicial
Council, 2005; Guerin & Pitts, 2002); however, rigorous experimental evaluations of DUI courts
have found little, if any, improvements in such variables over that of traditional court
participation or probation (Breckenridge, Winfree, Maupin, & Clason, 2000; MacDonald,
Morral, Raymond, & Eibner, 2007). These experimental studies cast some doubt over the
effectiveness of DUI Courts in reducing recidivism; however, additional research is needed
before any conclusions should be made.

Probation. Probation plays an important role in the supervision of DUI offenders serving their
sentences in the community; however, research on the effectiveness of probation in reducing
recidivism among DUI offenders is also mixed. For instance, Wells-Parker, Anderson, Landrum,



                                                13
and Snow (1988) found that probation had a small, but statistically significant, effect on reducing
long-term recidivism, but Courtright, Berg, and Mutchnick (2000) found no such effect on
reconviction rates. Wells-Parker, Anderson, McMillen, and Landrum (1989) examined DUI
offender characteristics in relation to probation effectiveness and found that probation was least
effective with middle-aged offenders and most effective with well-educated older offenders and
young well-educated minority offenders.

Treatment. The literature consistently supports the need for treatment in curbing DUI offenses;
however, studies have reported mixed findings regarding the effectiveness of treatment programs
in reducing recidivism among DUI offenders. Although some studies found that DUI offenders
who participated in treatment had lower recidivism rates (Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Socie et al.,
1994), others found no such effects (Courtright et al., 2000; Holden, 1983). Individual and group
psychotherapy have long played a significant role in the treatment of alcohol abuse and DUI
rehabilitation; however, the research on group therapy, self-help groups, or group psychotherapy
for treating DUI offenders is at best mixed. Ultimately, Wells-Parker, Bangert-Drowns,
McMillen, and Williams (1995) found that a combination of modalities, specifically substance
abuse education in conjunction with psychotherapy, counseling, and some type of follow-up
service (e.g., visit with probation officer or case manager) proved most effective in reducing
recidivism. Questions have been raised regarding the effect of coercion on treatment
effectiveness; however, most researchers agree that treatment can still be effective, even if not
entered into voluntarily (White & Gasperin, 2006; Dunham & Mauss, 1979; Ninonuevo &
Hoffmann, 1993).

Educational Programs. The effectiveness of education as an intervention has been found to be
most effective when combined with other treatment modalities, such as individual and/or group
psychotherapy (Wells-Parker et al., 1988; Deyoung, 1997; Wells-Parker et al., 1995). Some
studies have found that educational program participants successfully change their attitudes and
self-reported behaviors (Rider et al., 2006; Mann, Wingillis, Leigh, Anglin, & Blefgen, 1986)
and are less likely to be reconvicted of a DUI (Taxman & Piquero, 1998); however, others found
no such effects (Shepard & Stoveken, 1993). Brief educational interventions have been found to
be most effective with social drinkers, while problem drinkers need more long-term interventions
that include treatment and license sanctions (Wilson, 1991; Guth et al., 2008). Additionally,
Mann et al., (1986) found that the positive outcomes reported from educational programs are
strong immediately following participation, but quickly dissipate. Shepard and Stoveken (1993)
suggest that programs spend less time on building knowledge and place more of an emphasis on
decision-making and planning for future events. Due to the variety of educational programs
studied, it is necessary that additional research be conducted in this area, before any conclusions
can be drawn regarding their overall effectiveness.

Victim Impact Panels. Research on the efficacy of Victim Impact Panels (VIPs) is mixed. Many
studies have found them to be effective in reducing recidivism (Fors & Rojek, 1990; Sprang,
1997; Rojek, Coverdill, & Fors, 2003; Woodall, Delaney, Rogers, & Wheeler, n.d.), but others
have found little or no effect (C'de Baca et al., 2000; New Mexico Criminal & Juvenile Justice
Coordinating Council, 2004; Polacsek et al., 2001). Additionally, two studies found a possible
negative effect on repeat offenders (C'de Baca, Lapham, Liang, & Skipper, 2001; Woodall et al.,
n.d.). Although Rojek et al. (2003) found that the effects of VIP participation on recidivism were



                                                14
strong during the first two years, the effect appeared to dwindle out after this point. While these
findings are far from conclusive, they do suggest that VIPs may be one of many effective
interventions available for treating DUI offenders, especially young male first-time offenders.
However, additional research needs to be conducted on their use with repeat offenders
(especially female repeat offenders) in order to better understand their effect on these
populations.

Ignition Interlock Devices. Most studies on the effectiveness of Ignition Interlock Devices
(IIDs) in reducing DUI recidivism have found a significant decrease in drinking and driving
during the time period when the IID was installed; however this effect diminished once the
device was removed from the vehicle (Beck, Rauch, Baker, & Williams, 1999; Willis, Lybrand,
& Bellamy, 2004; Raub, Lucke, & Wark, 2003; Roth, Voas, & Marques, 2007; Voas, Marques,
Tippetts, & Bierness, 1999). However, a few studies did find IID devices to continue to reduce
recidivism years even after the devices were removed (Bjerre & Thorsson, 2008; Weinrath,
1997; Fulkerson, 2003). Additionally, according to Weinrath (1997), IIDs are effective with all
types of DUI offenders, including first-time, second-time, and repeat offenders.

Driver’s License Suspensions. Many studies have found that driver’s license suspensions
decrease DUI reoffending and vehicular offenses during the period of suspension (Ross &
Gonzales, 1988; Weinrath, 1997; DeYoung, 1997; Gouvin, 1986; Nichols & Ross, 1990; Wilson,
1991); however, a few found no such differences (Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Socie et al., 1994).
Additionally, a couple studies found that recidivism was significantly reduced in alcohol and
non-alcohol related incidents when licensing sanctions were imposed in conjunction with some
type of rehabilitation service, such as psychotherapy or education (Deyoung, 1997; Wells-Parker
et al., 1995). Although it was found that many DUI offenders continue to drive after their
driver’s license has been suspended, research suggests that they are driving less frequently and
more cautiously (Ross & Gonzales, 1988; Nichols & Ross, 1990). When imposing a sentence for
a license suspension, caution should be taken regarding the length of the sentence. The New
Mexico Criminal & Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (2004) found that license suspensions
are only effective when imposed for 12 months or longer and suspensions lasting 3 months or
less are ineffective. Licensing restrictions can play an important role in the rehabilitation of DUI
offenders, and parameters such as increased time imposed and additional treatment will greatly
increase the effectiveness of this intervention.

Predictors of Program Success

Some studies have found that female DUI offenders have more extensive psychiatric histories
and are more likely to report multiple disorders than their male counterparts (LaPlante et al.,
2008; McCaul & Furst, 1994). Additionally, women have been found to be at increased risk of
depression, low self-esteem, medical conditions related to alcohol use, and use of drinking to
cope with life crises (McCaul & Furst, 1994). A number of studies have found that DUI
offenders who suffer from depression are at an increased risk of DUI recidivism and future risky
driving behavior (Wilson, 1991; Wells-Parker & Williams, 2002). Additionally, in their study
that compared participants in a women-only program with those in a traditional mixed-gender
program, McCaul and Furst (1994) found that the participants in the women-only program
remained in treatment longer, had a higher rate of successful completion, and demonstrated



                                                 15
improved emotional/mental and physical health outcomes over those women in the mixed-
gender program. The above studies point out the different needs of female DUI offenders and
suggest that programs designed to address their specific needs demonstrate the best outcomes.

Level of education may also impact the effectiveness of treatment among DUI offenders. For
instance, Wells-Parker et al. (1989) found that short-term rehabilitative programs were relatively
effective with participants with lower levels of education (less than 12 years), but may have had
a negative effect on highly educated participants. Other factors that have been studied less, but
have been shown to influence DUI offender success are number of dependents (as dependants
increase, so do the odds that a client will be unsuccessful in drug court) and number of failures to
appear (FTA) in court (as FTAs increase so does the likelihood the client will not graduate), and
number of previous DUI convictions (Dunham & Mauss, 1979; Guerin & Pitts, 2002; Wells-
Parker et al., 1988).

Predictors of Recidivism

Younger DUI offenders have been found to be at increased risk of reoffending compared to their
older counterparts (Weinrath & Gartrell, 2001; Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Socie et al., 1994;
Lapham, Skipper, & Simpson, 1997) and Green (1989) found that unmarried DUI offenders were
at an increased risk of reoffending. Some studies have suggested that a person’s prior driving
record, not just their DUI history, can be a valuable tool in predicting recidivism (Taxman &
Piquero, 1998; Cavaiola, Strohmetz, & Abreo, 2007; Peck et al., 1994; Wilson, 1991). For
instance, Peck et al. (1994) found that DUI offenders with higher rates of prior traffic accidents
were at an increased risk of recidivating. In fact, two of the most important underlying factors for
predicting drinking and driving recidivism were found to be a person’s previous driving record
and the degree of their drinking problem (Peck et al., 1994; Green, 1989; Schell, Chan, &
Morral, 2006). As such, Schell and colleagues (2006) argue that DUI recidivism can be
decreased by reducing alcohol consumption; however, Taxman and Piquero (1998) found that
abstinence from alcohol had no effect on risk of reconviction.

Additionally, Taxman and Piquero (1998) found that repeat offenders were more likely to
recidivate than first-time offenders, and LaBrie, Kidman, Albanese, Peller, & Shaffer (2007)
found that risk of recidivism increases with severity of criminality. Additionally, DUI offenders
who have also been convicted of other types of crimes are at an increased risk of recidivism
(Weinrath & Gartrell, 2001; LaBrie et al., 2007; Nochajski, Miller, Wieczorek, & Whitney,
1993). LaBrie et al. (2007) found that DUI offenders with property crimes on their criminal
history were 1.4 times more likely to be rearrested for a DUI and those with person crimes were
twice as likely. The authors suggested that offenders with extensive criminal histories that
include offenses that are not alcohol or substance abuse related most likely have other criminality
issues that are not adequately addressed in alcohol and drug treatment.




                                                16
                                       Evaluation Overview

The Salt Lake County Division of Criminal Justice Services (CJS) has requested that the Utah
Criminal Justice Center (UCJC) provide a process and outcome evaluation of FOCUS,
comparing it to standard probation for DUI offenders.

The evaluation of FOCUS will answer the following research questions:
   1. Who does the program serve?
   2. What components of FOCUS are most effective?
   3. Is FOCUS succeeding?
   4. Who has the best outcomes in FOCUS?
   5. How does the FOCUS program compare to the DUI court model?


                                              Methods

Sample Selection, Data Sources, Collection Procedures, and Measures

Criminal Justice Services (CJS). Client records from C-track, the Management Information
System (MIS) for CJS, were used to identify the research groups: (1) FOCUS participants and
(2) the comparison DUI probationer group (PROB). Offenders were split into these two groups
based on the presence or absence of FOCUS participation as a condition of probation on DUI
cases. The first DUI that led to a FOCUS placement was selected as the qualifying event for the
intervention group (only 4 individuals had two FOCUS placements). Those that ever participated
in FOCUS were excluded from the PROB comparison group, regardless of whether or not they
had previously participated in standard probation at CJS for a DUI offense. The offenders who
never had a FOCUS placement were selected as the PROB comparison group. Out of those
cases, the first DUI resulting in a probation placement was selected as their qualifying
comparison group charge (55 of 670 PROB had more than one DUI charge leading to probation).
The final sample included 923 individuals: 311 FOCUS and 612 PROB participants. The
majority of both groups were on supervision between 2004 and 2007. CJS data included
demographics, charge type and degree, FOCUS/PROB start/end dates, conditions of probation,
supervision contacts, and legal status changes (probation violations, exit status). Table 2 on page
19 summarizes the data elements and sample sizes by data source. Unless otherwise stated,
results are presented for only those clients that were found in each data source.

Affordable Interlock (AI). Because Ignition Interlock records had to be hand queried at
Affordable Interlock, a subset of FOCUS and PROB cases, who had ignition interlock devices
(IID) ordered as a special condition of probation, were selected. In the first round of selection: all
FOCUS cases with IID ordered were included and those PROB cases that had IID ordered and
supervision ending by October 1, 2007 were included. This resulted in 150 FOCUS and 291
PROB cases. The PROB group was narrowed by random selection of 155 cases. The final cases
in the IID sample were hand searched in AI records by UCJC research staff, using name and date
of birth for look-up and selection. This resulted in the location of AI records for 126 individuals
(67 FOCUS, 59 PROB). The discrepancy between the number of individuals ordered to install
IIDs and the number of individuals who had IID records at AI could be due to a number of



                                                 17
factors, including: noncompliance with court order to install an IID, the offender claimed to no
longer have a vehicle, or the offender choose to use another provider (although AI is the primary
IID provider in the area). AI records provided IID install and removal dates, dates of violations,
confirmed violations, and Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) levels for confirmed violations.

Driver’s License Division (DLD). DLD records were also hand searched for FOCUS and PROB
records. The full sample was first narrowed by selecting cases where supervision began in
January 2006 or later. 1 Random selection was then used to further limit the included cases to 103
FOCUS and 109 PROB participants. The small sample sizes were required due to the time-
intensive nature of hand searching DLD records by CJS staff. The final DLD sample was hand
queried by CJS staff using name and date of birth for look-up and selection. DLD records were
found for 202 individuals (100 FOCUS, 102 PROB). Five (2 FOCUS, 3 PROB) had no driving
record found, while an additional 5 (1 FOCUS, 4 PROB) had no DUI-related convictions on
their DLD record. DLD records were used to capture citation and conviction dates of DUI and
related offenses (e.g., driving on restricted/revoked license, alcohol-related reckless). Only DUI
and related offenses that resulted in a conviction were included, possibly resulting in an
underrepresentation of offenses due to the possible exclusion of additional arrests that have not
yet resulted in a conviction.

Salt Lake County Substance Abuse Services (SAS). A list of all 923 individuals was sent to
SLCo SAS for querying in their substance abuse (SA) treatment datasets. Several combinations
of first and last name, date of birth (DOB), and gender were used to query the database. These
methods resulted in 438 matches (152 (48.9%) FOCUS, 286 (46.7%) PROB). Due to the use of
electronic matching criteria on combinations of name, DOB, and gender, it is not surprising that
some individuals were not located in these treatment records. Furthermore, Assessment and
Referral Services (ARS, the assessment provider for the county) data was not recorded in these
data prior to July 2006. When examining clients who began probation after that time, two-thirds
(66.9% overall; 86.5% of FOCUS, 59.1% PROB) had SAS records. SAS provided data on
assessment and treatment admissions: admit and discharge dates, level of treatment received, and
intake and exit assessment items, including drug of choice.

Salt Lake County Adult Detention Center (ADC). Jail records for FOCUS and DUI probationers
were hand identified through combinations of searches by first and last name, date of birth, and
Sheriff’s Office number (SO, the unique ID used by the jail). These searches resulted in finding
jail records for 201 (64.6%) FOCUS participants and 532 (86.9%) DUI probationers. Jail data
included a history of jail bookings from July 1, 2000 through May 22, 2008 by booking reasons,
charge types and degrees, and dates of booking and release. Those individuals for whom jail
records could not be found were assumed to have not had a jail booking in Salt Lake County
during that period; however, a few could have had bookings under aliases that were not found by
our selection criteria.




1
  CJS began keeping additional data in C-track in 2006, such as PCM contacts. In order to pull outside records for
the portion of the sample that also had the best CJS records, this selection criteria was often used as an initial filter.


                                                            18
                             Table 2 Data Sources and Sample Size
                                                                                Sample Size
Source                        Data Elements                                FOCUS   PROB       Total
                              Demographics, Charge type/degree,
                              Start/End dates, Conditions of
Criminal Justice Services     Probation, Supervision Contacts, and
                                                                            311      612      923
(CJS)                         Legal Status Changes (probation
                              violations, exit status)

                              IID Install/Removal dates; violation
                              dates, confirmations, and Blood
Affordable Interlock (AI)     Alcohol Content (BAC) level
                                                                             67       59      126

                              Citation/Conviction dates of DUI and
                              related offenses (driving on
Drivers License Division
                              restricted/revoked license, alcohol-          100      102      202
(DLD)                         related reckless)

Salt Lake County              Substance Abuse Treatment
Substance Abuse Services      Admits/Discharges                             152      286      438
(SAS)
Salt Lake County Adult        Booking/Release dates by reasons
                              (warrant, new charge, commitment),
Detention Center (ADC;                                                      201      532      733
                              charge types/degrees
jail)
                              Dates/types of hearings for qualifying
Salt Lake City Justice Court DUI cases                                      298      295      593

                              Dates of drug tests, substance tested for,
Global Drug Testing           results                                        11       13       24


Salt Lake City Justice Court. Online Salt Lake City Justice Court records were hand searched by
first, middle, and last name resulting in the location of records for 298 (99.0%) FOCUS and 295
(48.2%) PROB on their qualifying court cases. Although less than half of the overall PROB
sample was found in Salt Lake City Justice Court records, many PROB participants’ cases were
from other courts. In fact nearly all (97.4%) of PROB participants with Salt Lake City Justice
Court cases were located. Justice Court data provided dates and types of hearings associated with
the FOCUS and PROB cases resulting in program placement.

Global Drug Testing. Probation agreements showed that 60 FOCUS and 203 PROB had drug
testing ordered as a special condition. A list of all 60 FOCUS participants with drug tests ordered
was sent to Global for a query of their records. Of the 203 PROB ordered to drug testing, a group
of 60 were selected, 32 of which were selected because they were also part of the DLD look-up
group (and we wanted to have as much overlap between sub-samples as possible), while the
other 28 were randomly selected. This list of 120 offenders led to 24 (20.0%) matches (11
FOCUS, 13 PROB). Discussions with PCMs indicated that not all persons who have drug tests
as a condition of probation are required to test regularly. In fact, a special condition of drug


                                                 19
testing may include a “test as directed by case manager” clause in the probation agreement.
Further examination of cases that had drug testing as a condition but did not have results at
Global demonstrated that those persons were testing at their treatment provider.

FOCUS and DUI Probation Surveys

Development. Three types of client surveys were developed for this evaluation: intake, exit, and
follow-up surveys. Two slightly modified versions of each type of survey were developed for the
two different groups (FOCUS and PROB). The purpose of these surveys was to collect self-
reported data on: alcohol consumption, drinking and driving, attitudinal measures, quality of life
indicators, program satisfaction, and suggestions for improvement of the programs. All three
types of surveys included questions from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT;
Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001) so that indicators of alcohol consumption,
alcohol-related harm, and alcohol dependence could be examined at intake, exit, and after
leaving the programs.

Administration. During a participant’s initial meeting with their PCM, they were informed of the
evaluation of the FOCUS program. During this time the PCMs reviewed the informed consent
statement with their client, highlighting the voluntary nature of the research and the
confidentiality of their responses. After the participant’s questions were answered, he or she was
given the informed consent statement, an intake survey, and a business reply envelope addressed
to UCJC researchers. The participant was then led to a private assessment room at CJS where
they could complete their survey in private. After entering the assessment room, participants
could choose whether or not to complete the survey. Participants who completed their surveys at
CJS sealed their surveys in the provided envelopes and dropped them off at the front desk where
they were mailed to UCJC. Participants were also given the option of taking the surveys home
with them to complete and/or mail. Shortly before exiting the programs, participants were given
an exit survey, consent statement, and business reply envelope. Once again they were taken to a
private room at CJS where they could decide whether or not to complete the survey.

Follow-up surveys were mailed to former FOCUS and PROB participants at least six months
after they had exited the programs. UCJC researchers mailed these materials to the clients’ last
known addresses, as provided by CJS or located in jail records. The mailings included a cover
letter, new informed consent statement, follow-up survey, and business reply envelope. The
cover letter and informed consent statement outlined the protocol for choosing to participate and
returning informed consent and survey materials. Individuals who returned consent statements
and surveys were mailed two free movie vouchers as compensation for their time and
participation. A total of 470 follow-up surveys (171 FOCUS, 299 PROB) were mailed to former
participants. Some of these surveys were returned undeliverable (31 FOCUS, 50 PROB) and
only 13 FOCUS and 17 PROB completed surveys were received (9.3% FOCUS, 6.8% PROB).

Data Analyses

Data for FOCUS and DUI probationers (PROB) were analyzed using SPSS 15.0®. Statistical
analyses were chosen based on the level and characteristics of the data. Normally distributed data
(e.g., age at intake) were examined using parametric tests (e.g., t-test), while nominal variables



                                                20
(e.g., presence or absence of a jail booking in the two years prior to intervention) were examined
using nonparametric tests (e.g., Chi-Square). All statistically significant results are presented
with their test statistic and p value in a footnote or table. The p value is compared to a
standardized alpha (ά, significance level). Statistical significance was set at ά < .05, which is
standard in the social sciences. This means that the likelihood that the observed difference
between groups is due to chance is less than five in 100.

Statistically significant variables from the bivariate analyses were included in a multivariate test
predicting exit status. Binary logistic regression was used to identify factors that were
significantly related to exit status after taking the influence of additional variables into
consideration. The final model including only significant predictors of exit status is presented in
the Exit Status section of the Results. No multivariate analyses could be conducted to predict
likelihood of DUI recidivism due to the low occurrence of that event.


                                              Results

Participant Characteristics

Compared to PROB, FOCUS had more female, white, and younger participants. As shown in
Table 3, these differences were statistically significant. Table 3 presents the Mean (Mn; average)
age for each group and the Standard Deviation (SD). In normally distributed samples 68% of the
group will fall within one SD below or above the Mean (Grimm & Yarnold, 1995). This means
that most FOCUS participants were between 21.7 (31.2 – 9.5) and 40.7 (31.2 + 9.5) years old.
The two groups had the same five most common home towns, with most participants in each
group residing in Salt Lake City.

FOCUS and PROB participants had similar drunk driving histories (see Table 4). Approximately
two-thirds of each group (64.0% FOCUS, 65.7% PROB) had only one DUI/ARR conviction (the
one that resulted in program placement) recorded in their Driver’s License Division (DLD)
record when entering their respective programs. Similarly, about half of each group (48.5%
FOCUS, 51.5% PROB) had a jail booking for a DUI offense in the two years prior to program
start. Although both groups appear to have similar DLD conviction histories, significantly more
FOCUS participants had ARR charges (Alcohol Related Reckless charges) as their qualifying
offense at intake and nearly all were Class B Misdemeanors. This difference is most likely a
result of many FOCUS participants being offered the reduced charge in exchange for FOCUS
participation.

Jail booking data suggests that the PROB group included more people who have penetrated into
the criminal justice system (see Table 4). As reported in the Methods section of this report, more
PROB (86.9%) than FOCUS participants (64.6%) were found in the Salt Lake County Adult
Detention Center jail records. Of those, a greater percent of PROB had jail bookings in the two
years prior to program start (80.8% PROB, compared to 65.0% FOCUS).




                                                 21
                     Table 3 Demographics by Group
                                                FOCUS           PROB
        Gender*
             Female                             35.2%           21.0%
             Male                               64.8%           79.0%
        Minority Status*
             White                              70.4%           61.4%
             Minority                           29.6%           38.6%
        Hometown
             Salt Lake City                     49.8%           41.9%
             West Valley City                   6.4%            15.8%
             West Jordan                        5.1%            5.6%
             Sandy                              4.5%            4.7%
             Murray                             3.2%            4.2%
        Age at Intake*
             Mean                                31.2           33.8
             Standard Deviation                   9.5           11.4
        *Statistically significant at p < .05



          Table 4 DUI and Jail Booking Histories by Group
                                                        FOCUS           PROB
Qualifying Charge Type*
      DUI                                               23.0%           94.9%
      ARR                                               77.0%           5.1%
Qualifying Charge Degree*
      Class B Misdemeanor                               98.4%           86.6%
      Class A Misdemeanor                               1.6%            13.1%
DLD Priors
      1 DUI/ARR                                         64.0%           65.7%
      2 DUI/ARR                                         33.0%           23.5%
      3+ DUI/ARR                                        2.0%            7.8%
      Driving on Suspended/Revoked                      11.0%            8.8%
Jail Bookings 24mo Pre
      Any Booking*                                      65.0%           80.8%
      New Charge Booking                                54.5%           60.1%
      DUI Booking                                       48.5%           51.5%
      Any Non-DUI/Traffic Offenses*                     16.5%           29.5%
Jail Days 24mo Pre*
      Median                                              0              1
      Mean                                               4.6            11.0
      Standard Deviation                                 22.7           28.3
*Statistically significant at p < .05



                                        22
Although the majority of jail bookings for both groups were for less than one day (book and
release), due to a few individuals serving a substantial period of time in jail prior to probation,
the PROB group had significantly higher mean and median days in jail than the FOCUS group
(see Table 4). There were no group differences on percent of participants with any new charge
booking(s) during the two years prior to intake (54.5% FOCUS, 60.1% PROB). However, when
DUI and traffic new charge bookings were removed, PROB participants were significantly more
likely to have a new charge booking for other types of offenses (person, property, drug, public
order, etc.). Figure 1 displays the seven most common charge types at jail bookings for those
who had at least one new charge booking. The most common new charges for both groups were
DUI and traffic-related offenses. Of the remaining charge types, significantly 2 more PROB had
drug, property, and public order charges. Group differences on the other four charge types were
not statistically significant.

                  Figure 1 New Charges at Jail Bookings in 24mo prior to Start by Group
                                            100%
                                                                                                                  89.0%
                                            90%                                                                             84.4%

                                            80%                                                       74.3%
                                                                                                              69.5%
                     Percent of Offenders




                                            70%
                                            60%
                                            50%
                                            40%
                                            30%
                                                                               21.8%
                                                   19.1%
                                            20%         13.4%     12.5%                      12.8%                                12.1%
                                                                           10.1%                                               6.4%
                                            10%             3.7%                        3.7%
                                             0%
                                                   Person       Property      Drug          Public      Traffic       DUI       Obstruct
                                                                                            Order                                 LE
                                                                     New Charges at Jail Bookings 24mo Pre

                                                                                       FOCUS         PROB



Few FOCUS or PROB participants had substance abuse treatment prior to program start. As
noted in the Methods section of this report, approximately 85% of FOCUS clients who started in
July 2006 or later and over half of PROB had records found in Salt Lake County Substance
Abuse Services (SAS) assessment and treatment admission data. Of these individuals, only 2.8%
PROB and 2.0% FOCUS had any treatment admissions prior to program start.

Intake and Supervision

Time from DUI/ARR arrest to supervision start did not differ significantly by group. The intake
process for both FOCUS and PROB took just under nine months from citation to conviction 3
(FOCUS Mn = 248 days; PROB Mn = 274) and just over nine months from citation/booking to


2
    Property t = 2.689, p < .01; Drug t = 1.997, p < .05; Public Order t = 2.660, p < .01
3
    Citation to conviction date calculated for those with DLD records


                                                                                       23
supervision start 4 (FOCUS Mn = 292; PROB Mn = 297). Time from the first hearing on their
DUI offense to supervision start 5 was about six months (see Table 5).

FOCUS and PROB had similar judicial oversight on their DUI cases. The groups were equally
likely to have had any hearings with the justice court while on supervision, as well as review
hearings and order to show cause/bench warrant (OSC/BW) hearings (see Table 5). One
significant group difference was for pre-supervision OSC/BW hearings, where PROB were more
likely to have an OSC/BW hearing prior to being placed on supervision for their DUI.

                         Table 5 Court Appearances and Supervision by Group
                                                                       FOCUS         PROB
                     First Hearing to Supervision Start (days)
                           Mean                                           183         206
                           Standard Deviation                             161         166
                     Pre-Supervision Hearings
                           OSC/BW*                                       8.1%        25.8%
                     During Supervision Hearings
                           Any                                          52.7%        54.6%
                           Reviews                                      30.2%        30.5%
                           OSC/BW                                       34.6%        39.0%
                     Supervision Contacts (Sum)*
                           Mean                                          14.9          9.6
                           Standard Deviation                             7.3          5.9
                     Days between Contacts*
                           Mean                                          18.4         31.1
                           Standard Deviation                            13.6         18.9
                     Supervision Start to First Contact (days)*
                           Mean                                          22.5         29.1
                           Standard Deviation                            17.6         19.3
                     Last Contact to Supervision End (days)*
                           Mean                                          28.2         47.0
                           Standard Deviation                            29.8         58.0
                     *Statistically significant at p < .05

FOCUS had significantly more supervision contacts and significantly fewer days between
contacts (see Table 5), despite being on supervision for approximately the same length of time as
PROB (FOCUS Mn = 408 days; PROB Mn = 413 days). Not surprisingly, FOCUS also had
significantly fewer days from supervision start to first supervision contact and fewer days from
last supervision contact to supervision end. In addition to having more supervision overall,
FOCUS had significantly 6 more in-person contacts than PROB. On average, 64.2% of FOCUS

4
  Citation/booking to supervision start was calculated for those with a DUI/ARR pre-Supervision citation in DLD or
booking in JEMS records
5
  First hearing to supervision start was calculated for those with a SLC Justice Court DUI case
6
  t = -12.454, p < .01


                                                             24
participants’ contacts were face-to-face contacts with their probation case managers (PCMs)
compared to 38.2% for PROB. FOCUS participants also regularly attended community panels
(about 24.7% of their supervision contacts). No PROB participants attended community panels,
as it is a special feature of the FOCUS program. In contrast, PROB had significantly more office
sign-in 7 contacts (54.7% PROB vs. 7.5% FOCUS, on average) and phone contacts 8 (7.1% PROB
vs. 0.8% FOCUS, on average), which suggests a less intensive form of supervision overall.

Probation Conditions and Compliance

Figure 2, compares FOCUS participants and PROB on the special conditions of probation that
were listed on their supervision agreements. A greater proportion of PROB were ordered to
install ignition interlock devices (IID) 9 , serve jail time 10 as a condition of probation, pay fines 11
and restitution, 12 abstain from drugs and alcohol, 13 and submit to drug tests, 14 than FOCUS
participants. FOCUS participants were more likely to have substance abuse assessments, 15
treatment/classes, 16 community service, 17 and Victim Impact Panels 18 ordered as conditions on
their supervision agreement. It should be noted that although only 79% of PROB had substance
abuse assessments specified on their probation agreements, state law requires that all DUI
offenders complete a substance abuse assessment and CJS refers most DUI offenders to ARS for
a substance abuse assessment. Prior judicial notification/approval is received before an
assessment referral is made, in cases where an assessment was not ordered by the court. Only a
few participants of either group had alcohol testing (2.3% PROB, 1.6% FOCUS), 12-step
program attendance (1.6% PROB, 0.3% FOCUS), or employment (5.2% PROB, 0.0%
FOCUS) 19 ordered as a condition of probation. In addition to these special and FOCUS-specific
conditions, FOCUS and PROB share several standard conditions (e.g., supervision fees,
reporting to PCM), while FOCUS participation has additional requirements, such as in-person
contacts with the PCM, homework assignments, and community panel attendance.

In addition to having more fines ordered, PROB also had significantly20 higher amounts ordered
on average (Mn = $1,488), compared to FOCUS (Mn = $1,326). Although more PROB had
restitution ordered, most agreements indicated that restitution amounts were “to be determined,”
so a comparison of total values could not be conducted. In addition to having more jail ordered


7
  t = 21.951, p < .01
8
  t = 6.352, p < .01
9 2
  χ = 7.441, p < .01
10 2
   χ = 40.923, p < .01
11 2
   χ = 5.670, p < .05
12 2
   χ = 24.456, p < .01
13 2
   χ = 55.052, p < .01
14 2
    χ = 19.491, p < .01
15 2
   χ = 71.378, p < .01
16 2
   χ = 173.697, p < .01
17 2
   χ = 322.41, p < .01
18 2
   χ = 98.460, p < .01
19 2
   χ = 16.845, p < .01; Although significantly more PROB were ordered to find employment as a condition of
probation, very few PROB or FOCUS participants had problems with employment, as indicated on substance abuse
assessment intake interviews.
20
   t = 4.198, p < .01


                                                     25
as a condition of probation, PROB also had significantly 21 more jail days ordered than FOCUS
(PROB Mn = 11.5, FOCUS Mn = 4.8). Similarly, they had significantly 22 more days served in
jail (without new charges) during supervision (PROB Mn = 10.4; FOCUS Mn = 3.9). There were
no significant differences in number of community service hours for those who were ordered to
complete community service (PROB Mn = 72, FOCUS Mn = 76).

                                                        Figure 2 Conditions of Probation by Group

                               Victim Impact Panel                                                              73%
                                                                                                                                         100%

                            SA Treatment/Classes                                                    58%
                                                                                                                                          99%

                                   SA Assessment                                                                      79%
                                                                                                                                         100%

                                         Restitution              11%
       Special Conditions




                                                             2%

                                         Abstinence                                                      62%
                                                                                    37%

                                                 Jail                                                     64%
                                                                                       42%

                            Ignition Interlock Device                                               58%
                                                                                             49%

                                               Fines                                                                              90%
                                                                                                                            85%

                                       Drug Testing                             33%
                                                                        19%

                                Community Service                                     39%
                                                                                                                                         100%

                                                        0%               25%                50%                 75%                     100%

                                                                                Percent of Offenders

                                                                                      FOCUS       PROB



Ignition Interlock. Of those who were ordered to install an ignition interlock device (IID), less
than half actually had one installed by Affordable Interlock (AI) (44.7% FOCUS, 38.1% PROB)
This difference was not statistically significant. As noted in the Methods section, there were
several reasons why an offender may have been ordered to install an IID, but did not have one
installed at AI (e.g., sold vehicle, noncompliance, used another provider). For the offenders who
had an IID installed by AI, FOCUS had slightly fewer violations (56.7%) and confirmed
violations (46.3%) than PROB (66.1% had a violation, 55.9% had a confirmed violation) 23 .
These differences were not statistically significant. Although AI records suggest that PROB

21
   t = 4.897, p < .01
22
   t = 4.892, p < .01
23
   Both total and confirmed violations are reported, as even “not confirmed” violations are recording the presence of
some alcohol in the system, even if the AI staff were not able to confirm that it was due to drinking restricted
alcoholic beverages. According to AI there is no such thing as a “false positive” reading on the IID device: alcohol
is present if a violation is recorded; however, the source is unknown unless confirmed by the offender and/or AI
staff. Of the 174 violations recorded across both groups, 126 (72.4%) were confirmed.


                                                                               26
participants had slightly more violation events (see Table 6), the differences between FOCUS
and DUI probationers on total number of violations, Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) recorded at
violations, or time from probation start to IID installation to violations were not statistically
significant.

                     Table 6 Ignition Interlock Device (IID) Violations by Group
                                                                           FOCUS       PROB
                     Probation Start to IID Install (days)
                           Mean                                               67         87
                           Standard Deviation                                 89         136
                     IID Install to First Violation (days)
                           Mean                                               100        74
                           Standard Deviation                                 136        76
                     Last Violation (if > 1) to Probation End (days)
                           Mean                                               191        110
                           Standard Deviation                                 171         86
                     Total Violations
                           Mean                                              1.03       1.46
                           Standard Deviation                                1.41       1.67
                     Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) at Violations
                           Mean                                              0.058      0.03
                           Standard Deviation                                0.062      0.03

Global Drug Testing. Of the few FOCUS and PROB participants who had Global Drug Testing
records, most had at least one no show for a test (92.3% PROB, 63.6% FOCUS, difference not
statistically significant), about one-fourth had a positive/tampered test for drugs (23.1% PROB,
27.3% FOCUS, difference not stat. sig.), and less than one-quarter had a positive/tampered test
for alcohol (23.1% PROB, 9.1% FOCUS). These records suggest that for those participants who
were required to drug test and completed their testing at Global, significant amounts of
noncompliance with testing (either no shows or high/tamper tests) occurred in both groups.

Substance Abuse Assessments and Treatment. Nearly every (97.6%) FOCUS participant 24 had
an ARS substance abuse assessment record, compared to 78.3% of PROB 25 . This difference was
statistically significant 26 and suggests that FOCUS participants complied with their orders to
complete an assessment more fully than PROB. There was not a significant difference between
the two groups on average time from program start to assessment (FOCUS Mn = 94 days, PROB
= 121). The most common drug of choice at assessment for both groups was alcohol (92.7%
FOCUS, 83.3% PROB), followed by marijuana for FOCUS (3.6%) and methamphetamines
(6.0%) and marijuana (4.6%) for PROB. However, approximately half of each group (48.0%

24
   Assessment data was analyzed only for FOCUS and PROB participants who started July 2006 or later, because
ARS assessment data in SAS records began that month
25
   All PROB participants were included in the analyses, regardless of presence or absence of substance abuse
assessment as a special condition of probation, as state law requires that all DUI offenders complete a substance
abuse assessment.
26 2
   χ = 11.089, p < .01


                                                        27
FOCUS, 52.2% PROB) indicated no use of alcohol in the 30 days prior to the assessment. The
majority of both groups reported full-time employment (63.5% FOCUS, 57.9% PROB) and
living in a private residence (97.8% FOCUS, 91.2% PROB) at the time of their assessment.

Significantly 27 more PROB who had treatment ordered had a treatment admission during
supervision (50.6%) compared to 34.2% of FOCUS who had treatment/classes ordered. Because
the FOCUS group was ordered to attend either substance abuse treatment or alcohol education
classes as assessed, this difference is most likely due to fewer FOCUS participants requiring
substance abuse treatment. For those who received treatment while under DUI supervision,
groups did not differ statistically significantly on the types of treatment received. As shown in
Figure 3, both groups were most likely to receive outpatient or intensive outpatient treatment,
and least likely to use residential or detox services. Individuals could have more than one type of
treatment admission during supervision. Lastly, groups did not differ significantly on time from
program start to first treatment admission (FOCUS Mn = 162 days, PROB = 144) or total time in
treatment while under supervision (FOCUS Mn = 158 days, PROB = 164).

     Figure 3 Substance Abuse Treatment Types for those with Treatment during Supervision
                                        100%

                                        90%
                                                                                                              81.5%
                                                                                                         78.8%
                                        80%

                                        70%
                 Percent of Offenders




                                        60%

                                        50%

                                        40%
                                                                                     32.7%
                                        30%
                                                                                           20.2%
                                        20%           14.5%
                                               7.7%
                                        10%                             4.0%
                                                                 1.9%
                                         0%
                                                Detox            Residential      Intensive Outpatient    Outpatient
                                                         Substance Abuse Treatme nt During Supervision

                                                                          FOCUS     PROB



Noncompliance and Probation Re-Starts. PROB (29.6%) participants were significantly 28 more
likely than FOCUS (20.6%) to have noncompliance events during supervision that led to legal
status changes of: order to show cause, failure to appear, and reinstate probation. However,
discussions with program staff suggest that the observed differences are most likely the result of
varying judicial methods of extending probation, rather than actual differences in compliance
between the two groups. 29 As noted in the Supervision section of this report, both groups spent

27
   χ2 = 8.503, p < .01
28
   χ2 = 8.641, p < .01
29
   For example, the primary judge for FOCUS is able to work more closely with the case managers and, based on
case manager recommendations, may extend probation rather than revoke and reinstate probation for non-
compliance as many other judges do.


                                                                          28
an average of just over 400 days on supervision. However, the dates from the probation
agreements suggest that the PROB group should be on supervision for significantly 30 fewer days
(Mn = 378) than FOCUS (Mn = 409). It is likely that the additional noncompliance events that
result in probation re-starts for the PROB group extended their time on supervision, making it
similar to the amount of time that FOCUS participants were on supervision. PROB had an
average of 30 days difference from probation length as specified on their probation agreements
to actual days on supervision, compared to 15 days difference for FOCUS between days ordered
on their supervision agreement and actual days on supervision.

Exit Status 31

In addition to having significantly different experiences during supervision, FOCUS participants
were also statistically significantly 32 more likely to have a positive exit status 33 than PROB
(Figure 4).

                                                     Figure 4 Exit Status by Group
                                        100%
                                                                                     88%
                                        90%

                                        80%

                                        70%                                                67%
                 Percent of Offenders




                                        60%

                                        50%
                                        40%
                                                     28%
                                        30%

                                        20%
                                               11%
                                        10%                                5%
                                                                    2%
                                         0%
                                               Negative                Neutral       Positive
                                                                   Exit Status

                                                                  FOCUS      PROB



To determine if their differential experiences may have contributed to the higher success rate for
FOCUS, a series of analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between client
characteristics, probation requirements and compliance, and exit status (negative vs. positive).
Table 7 shows the pre-supervision factors that were significantly related to exit status. As shown
in Table 7, older age at intake and having an ARR as the qualifying charge were associated with

30
   t = -2.227, p < .05
31
   At the end of the study period (August 2008), 84.9% (n = 264) of FOCUS participants and 91.2% (n = 557) of
PROB had exited supervision. All exit status analyses are out of this sample.
32 2
   χ = 40.464, p < .01
33
   Exit Status categories were defined as follows. Positive: Final legal status of Probation Completion or Court
Closed Successful. Negative: Court Closed Unsuccessful, Incarceration/Commitment, or one of the following when
not followed by a subsequent probation re-start: Bench Warrant Issued or R & R Discharge. Neutral: Referred
Elsewhere and Initiated/Unable to Complete.


                                                                  29
positive exit status, while having any jail bookings, new charge bookings, and new charge
bookings for non-DUI/traffic offenses in the 24-months pre-supervision were associated negative
exit status. Of those who had a new charge booking in the 24-months pre-supervision, these
types of charges were associated with increased likelihood of negative exit status (see Table 7):
person, property, drug, and obstructing law enforcement (i.e., resisting arrest). However, among
those with a new charge booking in the 24-months pre-supervision, having a DUI charge
booking was associated with positive exit status. This suggests that if a person has a new charge
prior to FOCUS/DUI probation, their success is more likely if that new charge is a DUI charge
rather than a criminal offense. Factors that were not associated with exit status were: having
obstructing justice (FTA, BW), public order, or traffic charges pre-supervision; total DLD
convictions and convictions for DUI/ARR and driving on suspended/revoked (DOS/DOR) pre-
supervision; time from DUI/ARR citation to conviction and time from DUI/ARR
citation/booking to probation start; gender; and ethnicity.

                  Table 7 Pre-Supervision Factors Associated with Exit Status
                                                                            Exit Status*
                                                                    Negative           Positive
                 Age at Intake
                       Mean                                            30.8              33.6
                       Standard Deviation                               9.7              11.2
                 Qualifying Charge of ARR                             13.7%             34.0%
                 Jail Bookings 24mo Pre
                       Any Booking                                    85.7%             73.6%
                       New Charge Booking                             70.3%             56.7%
                 New Charge Booking for
                       Person Offenses                                17.9%              9.2%
                       Property Offenses                              15.4%              7.6%
                       Drug Offenses                                  26.0%             13.9%
                       DUI Offenses                                   81.3%             91.6%
                       Any Non-DUI/Traffic Offenses                   41.7%             19.0%
                 *All factors are statistically significantly related to exit status at p < .05

The following table (Table 8) displays the during supervision factors that were significantly
related to exit status. Having the following supervision conditions ordered was related to greater
likelihood of negative exit status: jail, abstinence, and drug testing. As noted in the Probation
Conditions and Compliance section of this report, those three conditions were ordered to PROB
more often than FOCUS. One supervision condition that was associated with positive exit status
was community service; however, among those with community service, total hours ordered
were not related to exit status. Similarly, although having jail ordered was associated with
negative exit status, total days ordered was not a significant predictor of exit status. Supervision
conditions that were not related to exit status were: fines, substance abuse assessments, substance
abuse treatment/classes, restitution, victim impact panel, and ignition interlock. The time from
the first court hearing to supervision start, probation case manager (PCM) contact frequencies,
and ratio of face-to-face contacts out of total contacts were not related to exit status.



                                                         30
Some compliance factors associated with negative exit status (see Table 8) were: more days from
supervision start to first PCM contact, more days from last PCM contact to probation end, having
an IID ordered but not installed, having a probation re-start during supervision, and total days in
jail during supervision (not for new charges). Having a treatment admission during supervision
and an IID violation were not related to exit status.

                 Table 8 During Supervision Factors Associated with Exit Status
                                                                                Exit Status*
                                                                          Negative             Positive
             Days Supervision Start to 1st PCM Contact
                   Mean                                                     32.4                 26.5
                   Standard Deviation                                       21.2                 18.7
             Days Last PCM Contact to Supervision
             End
                   Mean                                                     81.6                 27.0
                   Standard Deviation                                       66.8                 34.7
             Special Conditions of Probation
                   Jail                                                    67.6%                52.2%
                   Abstinence                                              64.3%                48.3%
                   Drug Tests                                              37.3%                23.5%
                   Community Service                                       43.2%                63.0%
             Days in Jail During (no new charge)
                   Mean                                                     15.5                 6.4
                   Standard Deviation                                       26.6                 16.5
             IID Ordered but not installed                                 74.5%                53.9%
             Supervision Re-starts                                         45.4%                16.0%
             *All factors in this table are statistically significantly related to exit status at p < .05

The significant factors that predicted exit status across both groups were entered into a logistic
regression model with group membership (FOCUS vs. PROB) as the final predictor. The model
was reduced until only significant predictors of exit status remained. When controlling for other
pre-supervision and during supervision factors, group membership (FOCUS vs. PROB) was not
a significant predictor of exit status. Table 9 lists the final significant predictors of exit status.
The Odd’s Ratios (OR) in the final column indicates the likelihood of positive exit status given a
participant’s status on each of the predictors. For example, the Odd’s Ratio of 1.02 for age at
intake, indicates that for each year older a participant was at intake, they were 2% more likely to
successfully exit supervision, while a participant who had a non-DUI/traffic new charge booking
in the 24-months prior to intake (OR = 0.38) was about 62% less likely to successfully exit
supervision. Having non-compliance during supervision, longer time from final PCM contact to
exit and having supervision re-starts, also reduced the likelihood of successful exit. As reported
in earlier sections of this report, three of the factors associated with negative exit status were
more common among the PROB group. However, older age at intake was associated with greater
likelihood of positive exit status and FOCUS participants were significantly younger than PROB.




                                                          31
                Table 9 Final Logistic Regression Model Predicting Exit Status
                                                  B      S.E.    Wald      df          Sig.   OR
  Age at Intake                                  0.02    0.01    4.55     1.00         0.03   1.02
  Any Non-DUI/Traffic New Charge Booking
  24-mo Pre-Supervision                          -0.98   0.24    17.01    1.00         0.00   0.38
  Days Last PCM Contact to Supervision End       -0.02   0.00    59.07    1.00         0.00   0.98
  Supervision Re-starts                          -1.06   0.23    20.60    1.00         0.00   0.35

Recidivism

DUI Recidivism. Driving under the influence (DUI/ARR) recidivism was extremely low for both
groups. As shown in Table 10, Driver’s License Division (DLD) records showed that 4.0% of
FOCUS had a new DUI/ARR after starting supervision, compared to 8.8% of PROB. The
average follow-up period for DLD recidivism was about two years (Mn = 377 days during
supervision and Mn = 355 days post-exit). Table 10 displays the frequency of DUI and related
offenses by group from the two data sources: DLD records and JEMS (jail booking) records.
None of the differences reached statistical significance; however, FOCUS participants had
slightly lower recidivism on nearly all of the DUI recidivism measures.

                           Table 10 DUI/ARR Recidivism by Group
                                                                 FOCUS       PROB
             DLD Convictions                                       %             %
             Total DLD DUI/ARR Recidivism                          4.0           8.8
                   During Supervision (Mn = 377 days)
                            DUI/ARR                                3.0           6.9
                            Driving on Suspended/Revoked           8.0           4.9
                            Ignition Interlock Violation           0.0           1.0
                            Open Container                         0.0           0.0
                   Post Supervision (Mn = 355 days)
                            DUI/ARR                                1.0           2.0
                            Driving on Suspended/Revoked           2.0           4.9
                            Ignition Interlock Violation           1.0           0.0
                            Open Container                         0.0           0.0
             JEMS New Charge Bookings for DUI/ARR
                   During Supervision                              3.0           4.6
                   6-months Post Supervision                       3.2           1.3
                   12-months Post Supervision                      3.3           3.5
             Combined DLD/JEMS DUI/ARR Recidivism                  4.2           4.9

DUI recidivism records were examined from as many sources as possible to determine the
impact FOCUS and PROB had on participants and the criminal justice system. However, there
are some important differences to note in the data sources. DUI recidivism data from new charge
bookings for DUI arrests (JEMS data) should be examined with caution, as fewer FOCUS
participants had records located in JEMS, therefore inflating their recidivism rate from that data


                                                32
source. Driver’s License Division (DLD) records are the more conservative, and accurate, source
for DUI recidivism. Only citations that resulted in convictions were included in the recidivism
measure. However, the timing of the DUI/ARR recidivism event was based on the citation date.
As such, only citations that occurred during supervision that resulted in a conviction (no time
limit) were included in the DLD During Supervision statistic. Similarly, only citations that
occurred after supervision ended that resulted in a conviction were included in the DLD Post
Supervision statistic. Although the difference in recidivism rates of 4.0% for FOCUS and 8.8%
for PROB was not statistically significant, the FOCUS rate was less than half of the PROB rate
and may represent an important reduction in DUI offending.
The literature suggests some factors that may increase the likelihood of DUI recidivism.
Although the DUI recidivism rates were low for both the FOCUS and PROB samples, these
possible predictors were examined in relation to DUI recidivism to identify emerging trends.
DUI recidivism rates were not found to vary by the following factors: age at intake; gender;
minority status; drug, traffic, DUI, or non-DUI/traffic (other criminal charges: person, property,
public order, etc.) new charge bookings in the 24-months pre-supervision; time from DUI
citation to conviction; or time from citation/arrest to supervision start. The lack of differences
found between DUI recidivists and non-recidivists on these measures may be due to the small
number of recidivists in this sample.

Non-DUI Recidivism. Both FOCUS and PROB showed a dramatic decrease in new non-
DUI/traffic charge bookings following supervision (see Figure 5). These non-DUI/traffic charge
bookings included person, property, public order, drug, weapon, obstructing justice, and
obstructing law enforcement charges. The most common types of during supervision offenses for
FOCUS were person, drug, public order, and property. For PROB the most common during
supervision offenses were property, public order, person, and drug. The decrease from pre to
during supervision non-DUI/traffic new charge bookings for PROB was statistically
significant 34 . Non-DUI/traffic new charge bookings continued to decline for both groups in the
six months following supervision exit. However, after one year out of supervision the rates
increased again. As reported in Table 4 on page 22, the PROB group had significantly more non-
DUI/traffic new charge bookings than FOCUS in the two years prior to supervision. This
difference remained statistically significant 35 while on supervision, but failed to reach statistical
significance during the follow-up periods. Overall, non-DUI/traffic charges decreased across
both groups following supervision; however, the FOCUS group was less criminally involved
prior to and remained less criminally involved following supervision.




34
     McNemar Test p < .01
     χ2 = 6.334, p < .01


                                                 33
                                                 Figure 5 Non-DUI/Traffic New Charge Bookings by Time
                                                 35.0%

                                                 30.0%          29.5%



               DUI/Traffic New Charge Booking
                Percent of Offenders with Non-
                                                 25.0%

                                                 20.0%
                                                                16.5%
                                                 15.0%
                                                                                  13.1%                          13.2%
                                                 10.0%
                                                                                 6.5%            5.6%
                                                                                                                 6.5%
                                                  5.0%
                                                                                                   4.0%
                                                  0.0%
                                                         24-mo Pre      During Supervision   6-mo Post     12-mo Post
                                                         Supervision                         Supervision   Supervision
                                                                                   Time Period

                                                                                   FOCUS         PROB



FOCUS and PROB Survey Results

       Intake and Exit Surveys

Surveys were completed by 74 FOCUS participants and 54 PROB at intake, as well as 46
FOCUS and 10 PROB participants immediately prior to exiting the programs. Most exit survey
respondents successfully completed the program (91.3% FOCUS, 100.0% PROB). As such,
results are skewed toward those who successfully completed the programs and results are not
representative of all participants, especially those who were unsuccessfully terminated and/or
chose not to complete the survey. There was very little overlap between the respondents
completing the intake and exit surveys (11 FOCUS participants completed both intake and exit
surveys); therefore, results represent trends among the sample, but not on an individual level.
Preliminary comparisons of PROB survey results did not identify any stark differences between
PROB and FOCUS exit survey respondents. Unfortunately, the small sample size of PROB exit
respondents (N=10) did not allow for inclusion in the comparison analyses. It is important to
keep in mind the small sample sizes and the self-report format of these surveys when interpreting
these survey results. Additionally, due to the self-report nature of this data it is impossible to
determine which differences are due to different levels of honesty and which represent actual
differences in behavior between the two groups.

Demographics. Survey respondents were primarily White (81.6% PROB Intake, 85.9% FOCUS
Intake, 90.9% FOCUS Exit) and male (84.9% PROB Intake, 67.6% FOCUS Intake, 67.4%
FOCUS Exit). The average age of both FOCUS and PROB intake respondents was 33 years of
age. FOCUS exit respondents had a median age of 32. Approximately half of respondents were
single and slightly more FOCUS intake respondents were married (30.0%, compared to 16.7%
PROB). Nearly half of intake respondents have children; however, only about half of these
individuals indicated that at least one of their children was living with them at the time of the
survey. Information regarding the reasons for children not living with their parent(s) was not


                                                                                 34
requested, however, previous studies have identified a variety of common reasons including:
children over the age of eighteen, children incarcerated, parental rights terminated, or child living
with other parent. Reported annual household income varied and ranged from under $1,000 to
over $100,000 (see Figure 6).

Most respondents reported living in their own apartment, room, or house during the six months
prior to intake (88.9% FOCUS, 84.9% PROB) and at exit (92.9% FOCUS). Only one PROB
respondent reported being homeless at intake. Few respondents were enrolled in school (either
part-time or full-time) at intake (15.7% FOCUS, 13.5% PROB) or exit (14.6% FOCUS). Most
respondents had at least completed high school (86.1% FOCUS, 82.7% PROB) and
approximately half had post-secondary education (58.3% FOCUS, 46.2% PROB). Nearly all
respondents were employed at least part-time at intake (90.4% FOCUS, 81.1% PROB) and
approximately half of respondents had been employed at their current job for more than one year
(64.7% FOCUS, 42.4% PROB). Those who were not employed at intake reported that they were
looking for work (10 respondents), not looking for work (1), disabled (3), homemakers (2), or
were unemployed for other reasons (1). Slightly more FOCUS respondents (95.5%) were
employed at least part-time at exit, than at intake and had been employed for at their current job
for more than one year (80.0%).

                                                Figure 6 Yearly Household Income at Intake and Exit

                                                                                                     Yearly Household Income


                         30.0%



                         25.0%



                         20.0%
      % of Respondents




                         15.0%



                         10.0%



                          5.0%



                          0.0%
                                 Under $1,000


                                                  $1000 - $9,999


                                                                   $10,000 - $19,999


                                                                                       $20,000 - $29,999


                                                                                                            $30,000 - $39,999


                                                                                                                                 $40,000 - $49,999


                                                                                                                                                     $50,000 - $59,999


                                                                                                                                                                         $60,000 - $69,999


                                                                                                                                                                                             $70,000 - $79,999


                                                                                                                                                                                                                 $80,000 - $89,999


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     $90,000 - $99,999


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         $100,000 or over




                                                                                                      PROB Intake                FOCUS Intake                            FOCUS Exit




                                                                                                                                35
Physical and Mental Health. Nearly all of respondents reported being in good overall health at
intake (94.2% FOCUS, 92.6% PROB) and exit (93.2% FOCUS). Slightly more PROB
respondents reported experiencing mental/emotional health issues at intake compared to FOCUS
respondents (see Figure 7). Additionally, fewer FOCUS respondents reported experiencing
serious depression, anxiety, or tension at exit compared to at intake.

Charge Description. The majority of respondents were under the influence of alcohol (94.5%
FOCUS, 94.5% PROB) when they were arrested/cited on the DUI charge that led to their
placement in FOCUS/PROB. Only a few respondents reported being under the influence of
illegal drugs (1.4% FOCUS, 5.5% PROB) or prescription medications (0.0% FOCUS, 1.8%
PROB). Intake survey respondents reported a wide range of Blood Alcohol Content (BAC)
levels for the DUI charge that led to their placement in the program (FOCUS range, 0.08 – 0.61;
PROB range, 0.00-0.32); however, median BAC levels were comparable for the two groups
(FOCUS Md = 0.16, PROB Md = 0.18). Unfortunately, actual BAC levels were not available to
researchers and therefore comparisons of respondents’ actual and self-reported BAC levels, to
measure respondents’ awareness of their actual blood alcohol level, were not possible for this
report.

              Figure 7 Self-Reported Emotional/Mental Problems at Intake and Exit

                          Have you experienced any of the follow ing during the
                                            past 30 days?

                Serious Thoughts of
                      Suicide


          Trouble Controlling V iolent
                  Behavior

            Trouble Understanding,
               Concentrating, or
                Remembering


                       Hallucinations



                 Serious A nxiety or
                      Tension



                Serious Depression


                                     0.0%   10.0%         20.0%          30.0%         40.0%   50.0%
                                                          % of Re s ponde nts

                                            PROB Intake   FOCUS Intake    FOCUS Exit



Alcohol Consumption. Clients were asked a series of questions regarding their alcohol
consumption during the year prior to starting the program (intake surveys) or while in the


                                                    36
program (exit surveys). A majority of respondents reported infrequent alcohol use (see Figure 8).
For instance, three-quarters (77.0%) of FOCUS intake respondents claimed to consume alcohol
no more than two to four times per month. Additionally, few respondents reported frequent
consumption of alcoholic beverages; only 2.7% of FOCUS and 14.8% of PROB reported
consuming alcohol four or more times per week during the year prior to intake. No FOCUS
respondents reported consuming alcohol four or more times per week at exit, and most reported
consuming alcohol no more than two to four times per month (93.3%) while in the program.
Additionally, fewer FOCUS respondents reported typically consuming five or more drinks (see
Figure 9).

                                                   Figure 8 Frequency of Alcohol Consumption at Intake and Exit
                                                              How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?

                                                 45.0%
                                                 40.0%
                                                 35.0%
                              % of Respondents




                                                 30.0%

                                                 25.0%
                                                 20.0%

                                                 15.0%
                                                 10.0%
                                                  5.0%
                                                  0.0%
                                                              Never      Monthly or less      2-4 times per       2-3 times per   4 or more times
                                                                                                 month                w eek          per w eek

                                                                              PROB Intake      FOCUS Intake      FOCUS Exit



                                                        Figure 9 Quantity of Alcohol Consumed at Intake and Exit
                                                        How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day
                                                                           w hen you are drinking?

                                       60.0%

                                       50.0%
           % of Respondents




                                       40.0%

                                       30.0%

                                       20.0%

                                       10.0%

                                                 0.0%
                                                                 0                   1-2                         3-4                   5+
                                                                                           Num be r of Drink s

                                                                              PROB Intake      FOCUS Intake      FOCUS Exit




                                                                                            37
Figure 10 displays the percent of each group who reported any of the following experiences
during the previous year (Table 11 provides a description of each category). The majority of
respondents (75.7% FOCUS, 74.1% PROB) reported consuming six or more alcoholic beverages
on one occasion at least once during the previous year. More PROB, than FOCUS, intake
respondents reported these behaviors, including: not being able to stop drinking, not
remembering what happened the previous night because of drinking, driving after three or more
drinks over a two hour period, driving on a suspended license or without insurance, and refusing
a breathalyzer. Fewer FOCUS respondents reported experiencing all of these behaviors at exit
than at intake.

                    Table 11 Variable Descriptions for Respondents Reporting
Categories               Description

6+ Drinks                How often do you have six of more drinks on one occasion?

                         How often have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once
Can't Stop
                         you had started?

                         How often have you failed to do what was normally expected of you
Failed to Do
                         because of drinking?

                         How often have you needed a first drink in the morning to get yourself
Morning Drink
                         going after a heavy drinking session?

Feel Guilty              How often have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking?

                         How often have you been unable to remember what happened the night
Can't Remember
                         before because of your drinking?

                         How often have you driven after 3 or more drinks over a period of about
Drive after 3+
                         2 hours?

Injured Someone          Have you or someone else been injured because of your drinking?

                         Has a relative, friend, doctor, or other health care worker been
Others Concerned
                         concerned about your drinking or suggested you cut down?

Suspended License        Have you driven on a suspended license?

Revoked License          Have you driven on a revoked license?

Without Insurance        Have you driven without liability insurance?

Without Ignition         Have you driven without an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) installed on
Interlock                your car, in court ordered?

Refused Breathalyzer     Have you refused to take a breathalyzer test?

                         Have you consumed alcohol while in a vehicle (either as a passenger or
Drinking in Car
                         the driver)?




                                                  38
                           Figure 10 Respondents Reporting at Intake and Exit

                                      Respondents Reporting at Intake and Exit


                   Drinking in Car

           Ref used Breathalyzer

         Without Ignition Interlock

               Without Insurance

                Revoked License

             Suspended License

              Others Concerned

                Injured Someone


                    Drive af ter 3+

                 Can't Remember

                       Feel Guilty

                    Morning Drink

                      Failed to Do


                       Can't Stop

                        6+ Drinks

                                  0.0%    10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%
                                                           % of Re s ponde nts

                                                  PROB Intake   FOCUS Intake     FOCUS Exit



AUDIT. Many of the previously mentioned questions were taken from the Alcohol Use
Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), a 10-item instrument developed by the World Health
Organization (WHO) to identify individuals with alcohol problems (Babor, Higgins-Biddle,
Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001). AUDIT scores of 8-15 indicate a medium level of alcohol
problems, and scores of 16 or more are considered to have high levels of alcohol problems.
Approximately one-third of respondents had scores of eight (8) or more (35.4% FOCUS, 39.2%
PROB), and even fewer had scores 16 or more at intake (10.8% FOCUS, 23.5% PROB). None of
the FOCUS exit respondents had AUDIT scores of 16 or more, but one-quarter (27.3%) had total
scores of eight (8) or more.



                                                         39
Survey data suggests that a vast majority of intake respondents were considered low risk (Level I
or II) according to the AUDIT (89.2% FOCUS, 76.5% PROB). Additionally, all FOCUS
respondents were Level I (87.5%) or Level II (12.5%) at exit. Table 12 presents the
recommended interventions for each risk levels. As shown in Table 12, the recommended
interventions for Levels I and II include alcohol education and simple advice. One difference that
was noted between the two groups of respondents was for the percent of respondents who were
at the highest risk (Level IV) at intake (6.2% FOCUS, 21.6% PROB). Once again, however, it is
important to remember that these scores are based on self-reported data and may not present an
accurate depiction of respondents’ drinking behaviors. Figure 11 presents the percent of each
group who reached AUDIT indicators of hazardous consumption, alcohol dependence, or
alcohol-related harm. As shown in Figure 11, more PROB, than FOCUS, respondents, reported
harmful drinking behaviors on all three indicators at intake. Surprisingly, more FOCUS
respondents had indicators of harmful drinking behaviors (on all three indicators) at exit than at
intake. Once again, it is important to point out that exit and intake surveys were completed by
different groups and do not represent changes on an individual level. Additionally, the
differences may be a result of more honest reporting following participation in the FOCUS
program.

                                                       Table 12 AUDIT Risk Levels
 Risk Level                                                 Intervention                                      AUDIT Score
       I                          Alcohol Education                                                                 0-7
       II                         Simple Advice                                                                     8-15
       III                        Simple Advice, Brief Counseling, and Continued Monitoring                        16-19
      IV                          Referral to Specialist for Diagnostic Evaluation and Treatment                   20-40
Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J. B., & Monteiro, M. G. (2001). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification
Test (AUDIT): Guidelines for Primary Care. World Health Organizations, Department of Mental Health and Substance
Dependence.


                                             Figure 11 AUDIT Indicators at Intake and Exit
                                                                   AUDIT Indicators

                                   90.0%

                                   80.0%

                                   70.0%
                 % of Responden




                                   60.0%

                                   50.0%

                                   40.0%

                                   30.0%

                                   20.0%

                                   10.0%
                                    0.0%
                                           Hazardous Consumption        Alcohol Dependence         Alcohol-Related Harm

                                                              R B
                                                             P O Intake       C S
                                                                            FO U Intake        C S xit
                                                                                             FO U E




                                                                         40
Beliefs and Attitudes. At intake, approximately three-quarters of respondents (72.3% FOCUS,
74.5% PROB) stated that they “strongly” or “somewhat agreed” that they would not be drinking
in the future; however, this decreased to less than half of FOCUS respondents (48.8%) at exit.
Nearly half of intake respondents stated that driving after drinking three drinks over a period of
about two hours is "always" dangerous (49.3% FOCUS, 47.2% PROB). Slightly more FOCUS
respondents identified driving under such circumstances as "always" dangerous (55.6%) at exit.
Most intake respondents also stated that, during the next year, there was "definitely no chance"
that they would drive after drinking one or two drinks (95.8% FOCUS, 87.0% PROB) or three or
four drinks over the course of two hours (98.6% FOCUS, PROB 94.4%). Although, nearly all
FOCUS respondents noted a desire to avoid drinking and driving when they started the program,
40% of FOCUS respondents who completed exit surveys reported driving after drinking three or
more alcoholic beverages at least once while in the program.

More intake PROB respondents reported having peers who drink heavily and/or drink and drive
and memories of their parents drinking and driving when they were growing up (see Figure 12).
Additionally, more PROB, than FOCUS, respondents believed that their DUI arrest was due to
bad luck or that they were targeted by the police. Fewer FOCUS respondents reported having
peers who drink heavily, or believing that their DUI arrest was due to bad luck or police
targeting at exit, than at intake. However, more FOCUS exit respondents had parents who drove
after drinking when they were growing up and friends who frequently drink and drive.

           Figure 12 Self-Reports of Drinking and Driving Events at Intake and Exit
                  Percent of Respondents w ho "Somew hat" or "Strongly Agreed"
                                        w ith Statements



               Targeted by Police



                 A rrest Bad Luck



           Parent(s) Drink & Drive



             Friends Drink & Drive



                 Friends Drink 6+


                                 0.0%   10.0%        20.0%      30.0%      40.0%      50.0%   60.0%
                                                         % of Re s ponde nts
                                                PROB Intake   FOCUS Intake   FOCUS Exit



Respondents were asked about their plans to avoid drinking and driving in the future and were
asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed that they would use the following options when


                                                      41
drinking in the future: designate a sober driver, take public transportation, call a taxi, drive as
long as they feel sober, and stay home to avoid the need to find transportation. The most popular
choices for intake and exit respondents were to designate a sober driver, call a taxi, or take public
transportation. However, seven respondents (3 FOCUS Intake, 2 PROB Intake, 2 FOCUS Exit)
“strongly agreed” that they would drive as long as they still felt sober.

Respondents were also asked about their beliefs regarding appropriate consequences for driving
after drinking three drinks over a period of two hours. At intake, FOCUS respondents were
slightly more likely than PROB to support the use of jail, license suspensions, and the
installation of ignition interlock devices “in most situations” or “always.” However, they were
slightly less likely than PROB to support the use of fines or probation in most or all situations.
Additionally, FOCUS respondents were more likely to support all of the above mentioned
punishments except for licenses suspensions at exit, than at intake.

Program Satisfaction. FOCUS exit respondents were highly satisfied with the Community
Panels, their Probation Case Managers (PCMs), and their Judge (see Figure 13). Additionally, all
FOCUS respondents (100%) who completed the survey at exit felt that participation in FOCUS
would help them avoid drinking and driving in the future. Most also took responsibility for
jeopardizing the safety of the community (95.5%) and stated that they were more aware of the
impact of their drunk/impaired driving on the community than they were prior to their
participation in FOCUS (95.5%).

Most FOCUS respondents who participated in various services found them “very” or “somewhat
helpful.” The services that FOCUS participants found the most helpful were: drug/alcohol testing
(90.9%), Victim Impact Panels (95.6%), employment assistance (100.0%), and other CJS
programs (100.0%). The service that the fewest participants found helpful was Ignition Interlock
Devices; however nearly three-quarters (72.7%) still found them “very” or “somewhat helpful.”
Satisfaction with FOCUS assignments was also very high. The assignments that FOCUS
participants found the most helpful were the: Sobriety/Avoid Future DUI Plan (100.0%), “The
Day I Received my DUI” (97.3%), Cost (95.1%), Triggers (94.6%), and the Letter Assignment
(94.6%). The assignment that the fewest participants found helpful was the Ignition Interlock
Device Laws assignment; however a vast majority (86.1%) still found it “very” or “somewhat
helpful.” Not surprisingly, most respondents (97.8%) found the FOCUS program “very” or
“somewhat helpful” and were “very” or “somewhat satisfied” with the services they received
while in FOCUS (95.6%).




                                                 42
                           Figure 13 Percent of FOCUS Participants who
                       “Somewhat” or “Strongly Agreed” with Statements at Exit


                "How strongly do you agree or disagree w ith the follow ing statements?"


      The Com m unity Panel as s ignm ents were fair and
                                                                                                              95.3%
                        worthwhile.
The Com m unity Panel m em bers helped m e change m y
                                                                                                               97.7%
  behavior and attitudes toward drinking and driving.
       The Com m unity Panel m em bers treated m e with
                                                                                                               97.7%
                          res pect.

 My Probation Cas e Manager expected too m uch of m e.                  18.6%

    My Probation Cas e Manager helped m e change m y
                                                                                                             93.0%
    behavior and attitudes toward drinking and driving.
     My Probation Cas e Manager was res pons ive to m y
                                                                                                               97.7%
          reques ts (in pers on, phone, em ail, etc.)

   My Probation Cas e Manager treated m e with res pect.                                                      95.3%


                     The Judge expected too m uch of m e.              17.1%

The Judge helped m e change m y behavior and attitudes
                                                                                                              95.1%
             toward drinking and driving.

                                         The Judge was fair.                                                  95.2%


                       The Judge treated m e with res pect.                                                  92.7%

I think that m y participation in FOCUS will help m e avoid
                                                                                                              100.0%
              drinking and driving in the future.
  The cos t of treatm ent fees that I am res pons ible for is
                                                                                                            89.5%
                        appropriate.
The cos t of s upervis ion fees that I am res pons ible for is
                                                                                                            90.7%
                         appropriate.

   I am les s likely to drive drink/im paired than before m y
                                                                                                              95.3%
                          arres t/citation.

     I take res pons ibility for jeopardizing the s afety of m y
                                                                                                              95.5%
                             com m unity.

I am m ore aware of the im pact of drunk/im paired driving
                                                                                                              95.5%
    on m y com m unity than I was before this incident.

                                                               0.0%   20.0%      40.0%      60.0%   80.0%    100.0%

                                                                              % of Re s ponde nts

                                                                                     FOCUS Exit




                                                               43
       Follow-up Surveys

Follow-up surveys were completed by former FOCUS (N=13) and PROB (N=17) participants.
Most respondents of the follow-up surveys had successfully completed the programs (92.3%
FOCUS, 88.2% PROB). Follow-up periods (length of time between program exit and survey
completion date) varied and ranged from nine months to two years. Additionally, respondents on
average spent approximately one year in the programs.

Demographics. Slightly more than half of respondents (53.8% FOCUS, 52.9% PROB) were
male, and nearly all were White (90.9% FOCUS, 84.6%). The remainder of respondents were
Hispanic. FOCUS follow-up respondents were younger (Md = 29, Mn = 32) than PROB
respondents (Md = 41, Mn = 41). Most FOCUS respondents identified themselves as single
(46.2%) or married (47.1%). Similarly, nearly half of PROB respondents (47.1%) were single,
but the other half were either married (29.4%) or divorced (23.5%). More than half of
respondents had at least one child (66.7% FOCUS, 64.7% PROB). However, only 72.7% of
PROB and 60.0% of FOCUS respondents with children currently had any of their children living
with them.

Most respondents (100.0% FOCUS, 94.1% PROB) have been living in their own apartment,
room, or house since leaving the programs. None of the PROB respondents were enrolled in
school at the time of the follow-up survey, but nearly one-quarter (23.1%) of FOCUS
respondents were enrolled at least part-time in school. Most respondents (92.3% FOCUS, 88.2%
PROB) had at least a high school education (or the equivalent), and many received some form of
post-secondary education (69.2% FOCUS, 58.8% PROB). Nearly all FOCUS respondents
(92.3%) were employed at least part-time, while less than half of PROB respondents (47.1%)
were employed at the time of the survey. Additionally, of those who were employed, more
FOCUS than PROB respondents had been employed at their current job for at least one year
(91.7% FOCUS, 50.0% PROB), possibly indicating a higher level of stability in the lives of the
FOCUS respondents. A majority of respondents reported an average annual household income of
at least $30,000 (77.0% FOCUS, 58.9% PROB) and almost half of FOCUS respondents (46.2%)
had at least $60,000 per year in household income (compared to 23.6% of PROB).

Physical and Mental Health. Respondents were asked about their mental/emotional and physical
health over the previous 30 days. Overall, most respondents reported being in good health
(92.3% FOCUS, 88.2% PROB); however, nearly half of PROB respondents (41.2%) noted that
they had experienced serious anxiety or tension during the previous 30 days (see Figure 14). In
fact, more PROB respondents reported experiencing serious depression; anxiety/tension;
hallucinations; trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering; or serious thoughts of
suicide in the previous 30 days than FOCUS respondents.

Charge Description. The majority of respondents were under the influence of alcohol (92.3%
FOCUS, 76.5% PROB) when they were arrested/cited on the charge that led to their placement
in FOCUS/PROB. Only a few respondents were under the influence of illegal drugs (1 FOCUS)
or prescription medications (5 PROB). Self-Reported Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) levels
ranged from 0.12-0.16 for FOCUS and 0.06-0.22 for PROB respondents. A slightly higher
median BAC was reported by PROB respondents (0.16, compared to 0.13 for FOCUS).



                                              44
                 Figure 14 Self-Reported Emotional/Mental Problems at Follow-up

                  Have you experienced any of the follow ing during the past 30 days?


             Serious Thoughts of
                   Suicide


       Trouble Controlling V iolent
               Behavior

         Trouble Understanding,
            Concentrating, or
             Remembering


                    Hallucinations



      Serious A nxiety or Tension



             Serious Depression


                                  0.0%   10.0%         20.0%           30.0%           40.0%   50.0%
                                                         % of Re s ponde nts

                                                 PROB Follow -up    FOCUS Follow -up



New arrests. Respondents were asked a few questions regarding any new arrests, citations, or
charges since exiting FOCUS/PROB. All but four respondents (1 FOCUS, 3 PROB) noted that
they have not been arrested or charged with a new crime since exiting the program (92.3%
FOCUS, 82.4% PROB). One FOCUS respondent had a new charge for animal abuse; the three
PROB respondents had new traffic citations (2) and a new driving under the influence of
prescription drugs charge (1). None of the respondents reported being arrested/charged/cited for
a new alcohol-related charge (including driving under the influence of alcohol) or spending any
nights in the jail since leaving FOCUS or PROB. These self reports were confirmed with official
DLD and jail records.

Alcohol Consumption. Survey respondents were asked numerous questions regarding their
alcohol consumption and drinking and driving behaviors since exiting the program. Most
respondents reported infrequent alcohol consumption since leaving the programs; three-quarters
of respondents (76.9% FOCUS, 70.6% PROB) claimed to consume alcohol no more than two to
four times per month (see Figure 15). Only two respondents (1 FOCUS, 1 PROB) reported
alcohol consumption four or more times per week since leaving the programs. However, over
one-third of respondents (38.5% FOCUS, 41.2% PROB) did report consuming five or more
drinks on a typical day when they are drinking (see Figure 16).



                                                    45
                                        Figure 15 Frequency of Alcohol Consumption at Follow-up
                                    Since leaving the program, how often do you have a drink containing
                                                                 alcohol?
                                60.0%


                                50.0%
          % of Respondents




                                40.0%


                                30.0%


                                20.0%


                                10.0%


                                 0.0%
                                             Never    Monthly or less      2-4 times per        2-3 times per   4 or more times
                                                                              month                 w eek          per w eek

                                                               PROB Follow -up     FOCUS Follow -up




                                          Figure 16 Quantity of Alcohol Consumed at Follow-up
                                    Since leaving the program, how many drinks containing alcohol do
                                            you have on a typical day w hen you are drinking?

                                45.0%
                                40.0%

                                35.0%
             % of Respondents




                                30.0%
                                25.0%

                                20.0%
                                15.0%
                                10.0%

                                5.0%
                                0.0%
                                                0                 1-2                         3-4                  5+
                                                                        Num be r of Drink s

                                                              PROB Follow -up      FOCUS Follow -up



Figure 17 presents the percent of respondents who reported drinking and driving experiences
since leaving the program (see Table 11, on page 38, for descriptions of the categories). As is
shown in Figure 17, more than half of respondents reported consuming six or more alcoholic
beverages on one occasion (69.2% FOCUS, 52.9% PROB), and 70.6% of FOCUS respondents


                                                                         46
reported that they had failed to do what was normally expected of them because of drinking
(compared to 29.4% PROB) at least once since leaving the program. More FOCUS, than PROB,
respondents also reported feeling guilty, not remembering what happened the previous night
because of drinking, and driving after consuming three or more drinks over a two hour period. In
fact, almost half of FOCUS respondents (41.7%, compared to 12.5% PROB) reported driving
after three or more drinks since leaving the program. However, more PROB respondents
reported not being able to stop drinking, having a drink in the morning, injuring someone, having
others express concern over drinking, driving on a suspended or revoked driver’s license, driving
without an ignition interlock device installed (if ordered), and drinking alcohol in a vehicle. In
fact, six (35.5%) of PROB respondents reported consuming alcohol in a vehicle (as either a
passenger or the driver) since leaving the program.

                               Figure 17 Respondents Reporting at Follow-up

                                      Re sponde nts Reporting a t Follow -up


                 Drinking in Car

         Ref used Breathalyzer

       Without Ignition Interlock

             Without Insurance

              Revoked License

           Suspended License

            Others Concerned

              Injured Someone

                  Drive af ter 3+

               Can't Remember

                     Feel Guilty

                  Morning Drink

                    Failed to Do

                     Can't Stop

                      6+ Drinks

                               0.0%     10.0%   20.0%   30.0%     40.0%   50.0%      60.0%   70.0%   80.0%
                                                          % of Re s ponde nts
                                                PROB Follow -up   FOCUS Follow -up



AUDIT. Some of the previously mentioned questions were taken from the Alcohol Use
Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), a 10-item instrument that was developed by the World
Health Organization (WHO) as a tool for identifying individuals with alcohol problems (Babor et
al., 2001). AUDIT scores of 8-15 indicate a medium level of alcohol problems, while individuals


                                                        47
with scores of 16 or greater are considered to have high levels of alcohol problems. More than
half of PROB respondents (53.8%) were considered to have medium levels of alcohol problems
after leaving the program (compared to 27.3% FOCUS). Additionally, while none of the FOCUS
follow-up respondents had scores of 16 or greater, 15.4% of PROB respondents did have these
high levels of alcohol problems. According to this self-reported data, nearly all of respondents
were considered low risk (Level I or II) according to the AUDIT (100.0% FOCUS, 84.6%
PROB). Recommended interventions for Levels I and II include alcohol education and simple
advice. See Table 12 on page 40 for a complete list of the recommended interventions for each
Risk Level. Figure 18 presents the percent of each group who had indicators of hazardous
consumption, alcohol dependence, or alcohol-related harm. As shown in Figure 18, FOCUS
respondents were equally as likely as PROB to have indicators of hazardous consumption and
alcohol-related harm, and only slightly less likely to have indicators of alcohol dependence.

                                             Figure 18 AUDIT Indicators at Follow-up
                                                             AUDIT Indicators

                                   100.0%
                                    90.0%
                                    80.0%
                                    70.0%
                % of Respondents




                                    60.0%
                                    50.0%
                                    40.0%
                                    30.0%
                                    20.0%
                                    10.0%
                                    0.0%
                                            Hazardous Consumption   Alcohol Dependence     Alcohol-Related Harm

                                                             PROB Follow -up   FOCUS Follow -up



Beliefs and Attitudes. Fewer FOCUS, than PROB respondents, claimed that they will not be
drinking in the future (20.0% FOCUS, 53.3% PROB); however, most respondents noted that if
they do drink in the future, that they will either designate a sober driver, take public
transportation, or call a taxi. One-third of respondents (38.5% FOCUS, 35.3% PROB) stated that
driving after drinking three drinks over a period of about two hours is "always" dangerous. Only
three respondents stated that such behavior is "never" dangerous (1 FOCUS, 2 PROB).
Additionally, more FOCUS, than PROB respondents, stated that during the next year, there was
"definitely no" chance that they would drive even once after one or two alcoholic beverages
(84.6% FOCUS, 58.8% PROB) or three or four drinks over a two hour period (100% FOCUS,
82.4% PROB).

More PROB follow-up respondents reported having friends who drink heavily and drink and
drive (see Figure 19). Additionally, slightly more PROB blamed their DUI charge on bad luck or
being targeted by the police. Slightly more FOCUS respondents (25.0%, compared to 18.8%
PROB) had parents who drove after drinking when they were growing up.


                                                                     48
               Figure 19 Self-Reports of Drinking and Driving Events at Follow-up
                  Percent of Respondents w ho "Somew hat" or "Strongly Agreed"
                                        w ith Statements

            Targeted by Police



              A rrest Bad Luck



        Parent(s) Drink & Drive



         Friends Drink & Drive



              Friends Drink 6+


                              0.0%   10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
                                                          % of Re s ponde nts
                                                  PROB Follow -up    FOCUS Follow -up



Respondents were also asked about appropriate punishments for a person caught driving after
drinking three drinks over a period of about two hours. FOCUS respondents were more likely to
support the use of fines and probation, but less likely to support the use of ignition interlock
devices, jail, or license suspension in most or all situations.

Program Satisfaction. Respondents were asked how helpful they found FOCUS or PROB. Most
FOCUS (84.7%) and more than half of PROB respondents (64.7%) found FOCUS/PROB “very”
or “somewhat helpful.” Likewise, most FOCUS (95.6%) and more than half of PROB
respondents (68.8%) were “very” or “somewhat satisfied” with the services they received.

       Qualitative Survey Feedback

At the end of each survey, respondents were asked what would need to be different to make the
programs more helpful and what they found most positive about their experience with FOCUS or
PROB. The following section provides feedback from these questions for intake, exit, and
follow-up survey respondents.
Suggestions. Many respondents were very satisfied with the programs and stated that they would
not change a thing about them (12 FOCUS, 1 PROB). Of those with suggestions for
improvements, the most frequently mentioned included reducing the cost, additional or more
intensive services, or less intensive services. Complaints about the high cost of the programs
were mentioned by both FOCUS and PROB respondents (2 FOCUS, 5 PROB). One PROB
respondent suggested that the emphasis of probation should be less about collecting money and
more about rehabilitating the offender.




                                                     49
As mentioned above, there was a mix of suggestions regarding the desired intensity of the
programs, with half wanting more intensive/individualized services, and the other half
suggesting that a less intensive level of supervision was more appropriate. One FOCUS
respondent wanted more assignments, while two others found the assignments “redundant” and
“not influential.” Two FOCUS respondents wanted to hear and share more personal stories with
other participants. One of these respondents wanted the FOCUS program to “show more
consequences for driving drunk. Bring in more people whose lived were affected by DUIs.”
Another found the videos helpful and requested that more videos on the consequences of
drinking and driving be shown. Two FOCUS respondents wanted more group sessions and a
couple respondents wanted more one-on-one sessions with their probation case managers (1
FOCUS, 1 PROB). FOCUS: “Maybe in the first 2-3 months of the program have an additional
small group meeting to go over struggles, community service help, etc.”

One (1) PROB respondent stated that she wanted to actually see her probation case manager
when she checked-in, and suggested that home visits be conducted. “I had a few problems but I
think it would be helpful if they cared how you were doing, called to see if you were ok.
Actually saw your [probation] officer when you checked in and if they really came to your house
to make sure your living arrangements were appropriate.” Another PROB respondent suggested
that treatment plans need to be individualized and appropriately matched to the individual’s
needs. Probation should be “less of a cookie cutter approach. I was in a "substance abuse" class
with a bunch of meth heads. How does that benefit me in anyway?”

Those respondents who argued that the programs needed to be less intensive complained about
various requirements, such as drug testing, probation case manager check-ins, and classes
(FOCUS, 2; PROB, 5). One PROB respondent suggested that these requirements be reduced for
individuals who work full-time. Additionally, a few respondents stated that check-ins with their
probation case managers were burdensome and held little, if any, value (FOCUS, 1; PROB, 1).
PROB: “It was pointless to see my probation officer every month for 12 months just to say hi
and pay him.” FOCUS: “Meetings with CJS case workers were a joke - unorganized and
unnecessary.” One FOCUS respondent even suggested that participants be given the option to
check-in online. This individual noted that this option would be especially helpful for those
individuals who have suspended driver’s licenses and therefore have an even harder time
regularly checking in with their probation case managers.

Some respondents voiced complaints about their probation case managers and the way they were
treated by them (FOCUS, 3; 2 PROB). FOCUS: “I had an awful experience with my first PO.
She was trying to find ways of getting me in trouble instead of helping me succeed. My other PO
was fantastic.” FOCUS: “I had four different case workers in an 8 month period. That's a high
turnover rate for employees quitting. They are obviously overworked and understaffed at CJS.
On 3 different occasions, my case worker didn't show up for my appointment and didn't call -
very unprofessional.” PROB: “Everyone in the probation system treats you like you have been a
criminal all your life and that you are a troubled drug user and don't contribute to society.”

Three (3) FOCUS respondents also complained about the screening/assessment process. Two of
these respondents argued that more precise and accurate assessments are needed. Another felt
that she was improperly labeled and treated as an alcoholic because she had a drinking and



                                               50
driving offense. FOCUS: “I was put in alcohol counseling based on the assumption that I had an
alcohol problem. I was later able to ask to be moved to one-on-one counseling which was a lot
more beneficial for me. I don't think that there should be this judgment that because I had a
D.U.I. this means I'm an alcoholic. I would've liked the chance to discuss my situation before
being placed in a sort of A.A. meeting.”

Two (2) FOCUS respondents found 12-Step groups helpful and suggested that participation be
required. However, one of these individuals acknowledged the voluntary nature of 12-Step
groups as a hurdle for actually mandating participation. FOCUS: “Somehow getting through to
individuals to get them to understand their alcoholism. A.A. meetings are a must. I realize it is up
to an individual to admit/realize they have a problem. A.A. saved my life.”

Positive Aspects. By far, the most frequently mentioned positive aspect of the programs, listed
by both FOCUS and PROB respondents were the probation case managers (FOCUS, 21; PROB,
16).

       PROB: “Good probation officer who cared and understood my particular situation. Very
       good man.”

       PROB: “It helped me stay on a positive track and to stay focused.”

       FOCUS: “My visits with my probation officer(s) were very positive and meeting with the
       community panels. I felt like I had a lot of support. I realized I had a problem with
       alcohol and took additional measures to help myself. Thank you for allowing me to
       participate in the FOCUS program.”

       FOCUS: “My probation officer was awesome and worked with me with everything. She
       made it very easy to succeed.”

       FOCUS: “Pat's counseling skills really helped me, especially on the days that I was
       feeling down. I really enjoyed the community panels and the community service. Heather
       was also a great support during my probation.”

Many respondents (15) also found the education and information they received in the programs
to be very helpful. FOCUS: “Realizing how alcohol has interrupted my life. How I can
understand it better. Being able to see that alcohol does not have to be what I depend on to have
fun.” FOCUS: “I think the most positive is how they show you thing[s] that could make DUIs
more serious and how positive they are towards you. They really care if you succeed. They don't
act like you're wasting their time. I feel they put a lot of effort in[to] helping you change and
make your life a lot more pleasant and how you can have fun without breaking the law. I loved
it!”

Twelve (12) respondents noted that the programs caused them to closely examine themselves
and the effect their drinking behavior was having not only on their lives but on the lives of
others. FOCUS: “It gave me an opportunity to be held responsible for my actions and really
think about how my actions affect and could've affected others. It taught me that I only had



                                                51
myself to blame for the choices I made.” PROB: “Made me step back and evaluate my life.
Taught me about drinking and its effects. I don't drink and drive. Period.”

Additional positive aspects that were mentioned by respondents included: assignments/videos,
Victim Impact Panels, Community Panels, Community Service, meeting other people who were
going through the same thing, getting sober, and the support received.

       PROB: “All I know is after jail, probation, fines, insurance raises, breathalyzer that didn't
       work right and a number of other classes, I will NEVER drink and drive if I have had
       more than one drink again. Probation alone really didn't do much by itself but maybe help
       me get things done faster and my fines paid faster.”

       FOCUS: “I wouldn't change anything. I think that program changed every way I used to
       think. I'm doing a lot better since before my D.U.I. and I owe it to my wonderful
       probation officer and the FOCUS program.”


                                           Discussion

Both FOCUS and PROB have experienced success with reducing DUI recidivism. DLD records
indicate that 4.0% of FOCUS participants had a new DUI/ARR conviction after starting
supervision, compared to 8.8% of PROB. The low recidivism rates are encouraging, but should
not be viewed as surprising, considering both interventions primarily serve first-time DUI/ARR
offenders (FOCUS 64.0% PROB 65.7%). The literature suggests that first-time offenders are less
likely to recidivate than repeat DUI offenders (Taxman & Piquero, 1998). The literature also
suggests that younger DUI offenders are at a greater risk of recidivism (Weinrath & Gartrell,
2001; Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Socie et al., 1994; Lapham et al., 1997); however, FOCUS
served a significantly younger population than PROB, but did not see a higher rate of DUI
recidivism. It should be noted that among those who completed follow-up surveys, both groups
reported continued problem drinking levels following program exit even though official DUI
recidivism rates were low.

One reason that FOCUS may have been able to keep DUI recidivism low is by targeting the
appropriate clientele with the right combination of services. Victim Impact Panels (VIPs) are a
standard requirement of FOCUS and have been shown to be more effective with first time
offenders, as they may actually increase likelihood of repeat DUI offenses among repeat
offenders, especially women (C’De Baca et al., 2001; Woodall et al., n.d.). Since FOCUS serves
primarily younger, first time offenders, the continued use of VIPs is recommended. Other aspects
of FOCUS, such as combining education with treatment and probation case manager (PCM)
visits, have proved more effective in reducing recidivism than any single intervention alone
(Wells-Parker et al., 1995) or standard probation alone (Landrum et al., 1982). The FOCUS
requirement that clients complete substance abuse treatment, if assessed as necessary, is also
supported by the literature. In fact, DUI offenders in Maryland who attended a certified alcohol
treatment program after their first offense were significantly less likely to be rearrested (7%)
when compared to offenders who did not receive substance abuse treatment (19%) (Arria et al.,
2005).



                                                52
Both FOCUS and PROB participants also showed a dramatic decrease in new non-DUI/traffic
charge bookings following supervision; however, FOCUS was less criminally involved prior to
and remained less criminally involved following supervision. Although the literature indicates
that severity of criminality (LaBrie, Kidman, Albanese, Peller, & Shaffer, 2007) and convictions
for other types of crimes (Weinrath & Gartrell, 2001; LaBrie et al., 2007; Nochajski, Miller,
Wieczorek, & Whitney, 1993) lead to increased likelihood of DUI recidivism, we did not see a
significantly higher rate of DUI recidivism among PROB participants. In addition to being more
criminally involved prior to supervision, PROB participants were older and PROB served more
male and minority offenders than FOCUS. Surveys administered to both groups indicate that
PROB participants may also have more problem drinking behaviors and mental health problems
than FOCUS participants; however, self-reports of education, employment, and income were
similar, with both groups experiencing higher levels than typical criminal justice populations.

FOCUS and PROB had several program differences, with FOCUS participants receiving more
intensive supervision and being ordered to more standard conditions of supervision. PROB
participants were more likely to have punitive conditions of probation ordered (e.g., jail, fines,
and restitution), while FOCUS participants were more likely to have rehabilitative conditions
ordered, including: substance abuse assessments and treatment/classes, community service, and
Victim Impact Panels. Some experiences were similar across groups including time from
DUI/ARR citation to conviction to supervision start, amount of judicial oversight, and
noncompliance with IID and drug testing requirements. However, PROB were significantly more
likely to have a negative exit status. Four factors that significantly increased the likelihood of
negative exit status, regardless of group (FOCUS or PROB) were: younger age at intake, having
non-DUI/traffic new charge bookings in the two years prior to supervision, and during-
supervision non-compliance (having a probation re-start and longer time from last PCM contact
to exit).

Recommendations

Supervision. FOCUS and PROB participants who completed exit and follow-up surveys credited
their success to the influence of their probation case managers (PCM). Furthermore, several
respondents suggested that the programs offer more intensive services/supervision. The program
data also seems to support the importance of close, frequent supervision. FOCUS had
significantly more face-to-face and frequent contacts than PROB, less time between supervision
start to first contact, and less time from final PCM contact to supervision end. Additionally,
FOCUS had significantly fewer probation re-starts during supervision and a significantly higher
rate of successful program completion. Two factors significantly related to successful exit were
not having a probation re-start and having less time from final PCM contact to program exit.
These factors suggest that closer, hands-on supervision can lead to better program outcomes.

FOCUS Special Conditions. The special conditions that FOCUS participants are required to
complete in addition to standard probation conditions include: bi-monthly reporting to PCM,
substance abuse assessment at Assessment and Referral Services (ARS), substance abuse
treatment and/or classes as recommended by ARS, 48 hours of community service, attend the
victim impact panel, attend the community panels, and complete all FOCUS assignments. This



                                               53
combination of intensive and varied services is supported by the literature. One study found that
a combination of modalities, specifically substance abuse education in conjunction with
psychotherapy, counseling, and some type of follow-up service (e.g., visit with probation officer
or case manager) proved most effective in reducing recidivism (Wells-Parker, et al., 1995).
While another showed that DUI offenders treated with group therapy, probation, and education
demonstrated decreased recidivism compared to those on standard probation (Landrum et al.,
1982). The comprehensive approach to treating the DUI offender employed by FOCUS should
be continued.

Victim Impact Panels. VIPs are a required element of the FOCUS program and were identified
as being “somewhat” or “very helpful” by over 95% of survey respondents. The literature
suggests that VIPs are more effective with first time offenders (C’De Baca et al., 2001; Woodall
et al. (n.d.)). As FOCUS currently serves primarily first time offenders (64.0%), the continued
use of VIPs is recommended. However, if the program shifts to serving older or more repeat DUI
offenders, the use of VIPs with that population should be more closely examined, as it could lead
to negative consequences.

Compliance with Conditions. Although both programs demonstrated a dramatic reduction in
DUI and non-DUI/traffic recidivism, the data suggest that noncompliance with supervision
conditions is prevalent. For example, SLCo SAS records suggest that approximately 80% of the
PROB offenders received a substance abuse assessment, while nearly all of the FOCUS
participants did. Substance abuse assessments are mandatory by state law for all DUI offenders.
Affordable Interlock records were only found for less than half of both FOCUS and PROB
participants who were required to have an IID installed; however, as discussed in the Methods
section of this report, several reasons exist for lack of compliance with IID installation. Of those
who did have IID records, the majority had a violation, as did offenders who had drug testing
recorded at Global Drug Testing. Although relapse can be expected as a normal part of recovery,
compliance with court orders should be monitored closely and consequences should be provided
for noncompliance. Compliance with court orders may not be a necessary condition for
successful completion or reduced future DUI and criminal offending; however, if one purpose of
FOCUS and PROB is to hold DUI offenders accountable, greater oversight of compliance with
conditions should be pursued.

Criminal Offending. PROB participants are more criminally involved prior to supervision and
remained more criminally involved following program exit. The literature suggests that offenders
with extensive criminal histories that include offenses that are not alcohol or substance abuse
related most likely have other criminality issues that are not adequately addressed in alcohol and
drug treatment (Weinrath & Gartrell, 2001; LaBrie et al., 2007; Nochajski, Miller, Wieczorek, &
Whitney, 1993). Across both FOCUS and PROB groups, having non-DUI/traffic new charge
bookings in the two years prior to supervision was a significant predictor of having a negative
exit status. Both programs, especially PROB, should consider implementing an intervention
aimed at addressing criminal thinking patterns and deviant behavior, in addition to the current
treatments for substance abuse and drinking and driving behaviors.

Problem Drinking Behaviors. Again, although official DUI rates decrease dramatically
following participation, self-reports of problem drinking behaviors persist both during and



                                                 54
following FOCUS and PROB participation. Just under half of FOCUS participants reported
having six or more drinks in one sitting or driving after three or more drinks while in the
program. At follow-up, approximately 70% of both PROB and FOCUS had self-reported
drinking behaviors on the AUDIT items that suggested “Hazardous Consumption.” Problem
drinking behaviors may not directly influence drinking and driving behaviors; however,
hazardous drinking behaviors have been linked to a variety of problems, including breakdown in
relationships, trauma, hospitalization, prolonged disability, and early death (Babor et al., 2001).
The FOCUS and PROB programs should continue to examine how they can best address both
drinking and driving and problem drinking behaviors.


                                           Conclusion

Both FOCUS and PROB have experienced success with reducing DUI recidivism and non-
DUI/traffic recidivism. In addition, FOCUS has a significantly higher rate of overall participant
compliance and successful exit status than PROB. The intensive supervision and comprehensive
services of FOCUS seem to be related to the differential success of the program. The success of
both programs will be maintained through continuation of successful strategies (i.e., Victim
Impact Panel for first-time offenders, treatment, and education) and implementation of new
interventions to address continued needs (i.e., criminal offending and problem drinking
behaviors).




                                                55
                                           References


Alaska Judicial Council (2005). Evaluation of the outcomes in three therapeutic courts. Alaska
       State Legislature and the Department of Health and Social Services.

Arria, A. M., O’Grady, K., Smith, P., Connell, N., & Wish, E. D. (2005). Assessment and
        treatment of DWI offenders in Maryland: Current Findings. College Park, MD: Center
        for Substance Abuse Research.

Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J. B., & Monteiro, M. G. (2001). The Alcohol Use
       Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): Guidelines for Primary Care. World Health
       Organizations, Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence.

Badovinac, K. (1994). The effects of victim impact panels on attitudes and intentions regarding
      impaired driving. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 39(3), 113-119.

Becccaria, C. (1764/1963). On crimes and punishments. New York: Bobbs Merrill.

Beck, K. H., Rauch, W. J., Baker, E. A., & Williams, A. F. (1999). Effects of ignition interlock
       license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses: A randomized trial in
       Maryland. American Journal of Public Health, 89(11), 1696-1700.

Beitel, G. A., Sharp, M. C., & Glauz, W. D. (2000). Probability of arrest while driving under the
        influence of alcohol. Injury Prevention, 6(2), 158-161.

Bjerre, B., & Thorsson, U. (2008). Is an alcohol ignition interlock programme a useful tool for
        changing the alcohol and driving habits of drink-drivers? Accident Analysis &
        Prevention, 40(1), 267-273.

Breckenridge, J. F., Winfree, L. T., Maupin, J. R., & Clason, D. L. (2000). Drunk drivers, DWI
      “drug court” treatment, and recidivism: Who fails? Justice Research and Policy, 2, 87-
      105.

C'de Baca, J. C., Lapham, S. C., Paine, S., & Skipper, B. J. (2000). Victim impact panels: Who is
       sentenced to attend? Does attendance affect recidivism of first-time DWI offenders?
       Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research, 24(9), 1420-1426.

C’De Baca, J., Lapham, S. C., Liang, H. C., & Skipper, B. J. (2001). Victim impact panels: Do
      they impact drunk drivers? A follow-up of female and male, first-time and repeat
      offenders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 615-620.

Cavaiola, A. A., Strohmetz, D. B., & Abreo, S. D. (2007). Characteristics of DUI recidivists: A
       12-year follow-up study of first time DUI offenders. Addictive Behaviors, 32(4), 855-
       861.




                                               56
Courtright, K. E., Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. J. (2000). Rehabiliation in the new machine?
       Exploring drug and alcohol use and variables related to success among DUI offenders
       under electronic monitoring - Some preliminary outcome results. International Journal of
       Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(3), 293-311.

Deyoung, J. D. (1997). An evaluation of the effectiveness of alcohol treatment, driver license
      actions and jail terms in reducing drunk driving recidivism in California. Addiction, 92,
      989-997.

Dunham, G. R., & Mauss, L. A. (1979). Evaluation of treatment programs: A statistical
     resolution of selection biases using the case of problem drinking. Evaluation Review, 3,
     411-426.

Eibner, C., Morral, A. R., Pacula, R. L., & MacDonald, J. (2006). Is the drug court model
       exportable? The cost-effectiveness of a driving-under-the-influence court. Journal of
       Substance Abuse Treatment, 31, 75-85.

For, S. W., & Rojek, D. G. (1999). The effect of victim impact panels on DUI/DWI rearrest
        rates: A twelve-month follow-up. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 514-520.

Fulkerson, Judge A. (2003). Blow and Go: The Breath-Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device as a
       Technological Response to DWI. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 29(1),
       219-235.

Gouvin, E. J. (1986). Drunk driving and the alcoholic offender: A new approach to an old
      problem. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 12(1), 99-130.

Green, D. E. (1989). Past behavior as a measure of actual future behavior: An unresolved issue in
       perceptual deterrence research. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 80(3), 781-804.

Grimm, L.G., & Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.). (1995). Reading and Understanding Multivariate
     Statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Grube, J. W., & Kearney, K. A. (1983). A "Mandatory" Jail Sentence for Drinking and Driving.
       Evaluation Review, 7(2), 235-246.

Guerin, P., & Pitts, J. W. (2002). Evaluation of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan DWI/DRUG
       Court: Final report. University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research Center for
       Applied Research and Analysis.

Guth, S., Lindberg, S. A., Badger, G. J., Thomas, C. S., Rose, G. L., & Helzer, J. E. (2008). Brief
       intervention in alcohol-dependent versus nondependent individuals. Journal of Studies on
       Alcohol & Drugs, 69, 243-250.

Hedlund, J. H. (1994). “If they didn’t drink, would they crash anyway?”- The role of alcohol in
      traffic crashes. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 10, 115–125.


                                                57
Holden, R. T. (1983). Rehabilitative Sanctions for Drunk Driving: An Experimental Evaluation.
      Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 55-72.

Houston, D. J., & Richardson, L. E. (2004). Drinking-and-Driving in America: A Test of
      Behavioral Assumptions Underlying Public Policy. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1),
      53-64.

LaBrie, R. A., Kidman, R. C., Albanese, M., Peller, A. J., & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Criminality
       and continued DUI offense: Criminal typologies and recidivism among repeat offenders.
       Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 603-614.

Landrum, J., Miles, S., Neff, R., Pritchard, T., Roebuck, J., Wells-Parker, E., et al. (1982).
      Mississippi DUI probation follow-up project. National Highway Traffic Safety
      Administration.

Lapham, S. C., C'de Baca, J., Lapidus, J., & McMillan, G. P. (2007). Randomized sanctions to
      reduce re-offense among repeat impaired-driving offenders. Addiction, 102(10), 1618-
      1625.

Lapham, S. C., C’de Baca, J., McMillan, G., & Hunt, W. C. (2004). Accuracy of alcohol
        diagnosis among DWI offenders referred for screening. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,
        76(2), 135-141.

Lapham, S. C., Skipper, B. J., & Simpson, G. L. (1997). A prospective study of the utility of
      standardized instruments in predicting recidivism among first DWI offenders. Journal of
      Studies on Alcohol, 58(5), 524-530.

LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., Odegaard, S. S., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Substance
       and psychiatric disorders among men and women repeat driving under the influence
       offenders who accept a treatment-sentencing option. Journal of Studies on Alcohol &
       Drugs, 69, 209-217.

Loeffler, M., Wanamaker, J., Devine, M., Huddleston, C. W. III, Marlowe, D. B., Bell, C., et al.
       (n.d.). The ten guiding principles of DWI courts. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court
       Institute (NDCI).

MacDonald, M. J., Morral, R. A., Raymond, B., & Eibner, C. (2007). The efficacy of the Rio
     Hondo DUI Court: A 2-year field experiment. Evaluation Review, 31, 4-23.

McCaul, M. E., & Furst, J. (1994). Alcoholism treatment in the United States. Alcohol Health &
     Research World, 18(4), 253-261.

McKnight, A. J., & Voas, R. B. (1991). The effect of license suspension upon DWI recidivism.
     Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 7, 43-54.




                                                 58
Morse, B. J., & Elliott, D. S. (1992). Effects of Ignition Interlock Devices on DUI Recidivism:
       Findings from a Longitudinal Study in Hamilton County, Ohio. Crime & Delinquency,
       38(2), 131-157.

National Association of Drug Court Professional (NADCP) (1997). Defining drug courts: The
       key components. Alexandria, VA.

New Mexico Criminal & Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (2004). A snapshot report of
     national and international DWI programs and sanctions. Albuquerque, NM: University
     of New Mexico.

Nichols, J., & Ross, H. L. (1990). The effectiveness of legal sanctions in dealing with drunk
       drivers. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 6, 33-60.

Ninonuevo, F., & Hoffmann, N. G. (1993). DUI arrestees versus other outpatients in chemical
      dependency treatment: Initial status and one-year outcome. International Journal of
      Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 37, 177-186.

Nochajski, T. H., Miller, B. A., Wieczorek, W. F., & Whitney, R. (1993). The effects of a
      drinker-driver treatment program: Does criminal history make a difference? Criminal
      Justice & Behavior, 20(2), 174-189.

Parks, K. A., Nochajski, T. H., Wieczorek, W. F., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Assessing alcohol
       problems in female DWI offenders. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,
       20(3), 434-439.

Peck, R. G., Arstein-Kerslake, G. W., & Helander, C. J. (1994). Psychometric and biographical
       correlates of drunk-driving recidivism and treatment program compliance. Journal of
       Studies on Alcohol, 55(6), 667-678.

Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Intensive supervision for high risk probationers: Findings
          from Three California Experiments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Polacsek, M., Rogers, E.M., Woodall, G.W., Delaney, H., Wheeler, D., & Rao, N. (2001).
       MADD victim impact panels and stages-of change in drunk-driving prevention. Journal
       of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 344-50.

Raub, R. A., Lucke, R. E., & Wark, R. I. (2003). Breath alcohol ignition interlock devices:
       Controlling the recidivist. Traffic Injury Prevention, 4, 28-34.

Reilly, D. A., & Pierre-Lawson, A. (2008). Ensuring sustainability for drug courts: An overview
        of funding strategies. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute (NDCI).

Rider, R., Kelley-Baker, T., Voas, R. B., Murphy, B., McKnight, J. A., & Levings, C. (2006).
       The impact of a novel educational curriculum for first-time DUI offenders on




                                                59
       intermediate outcomes relevant to DUI recidivism. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
       38(3), 482-9.

Rider, R., Voas, R. B., Kelley-Baker, T., Grosz, M., & Murphy, B. (2007). Preventing alcohol-
       related convictions: The effect of a novel curriculum for first-time offenders on DUI
       recidivism. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8(2), 147-152.

Rojek, D. G., Coverdill, J. E., & Fors, S. W. (2003). The effect of victim impact panels on DUI
       rearrest rates: A five year follow-up. Criminology, 41(4), 1319-1340.

Ross, H. L., & Gonzales, P. (1988). Effects of license revocation on drunk-driving offenders.
       Accident Analysis & Prevention, 20, 379-9.

Ross, H. L., & Gusfield, J. R. (1992). Confronting drunk driving: Social policy for saving lives.
       New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ross, H. L. (1992) Are DWI sanctions effective? Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 8, 61-69.

Ross, H. L. (1993). Punishment as a factor in preventing alcohol-related accidents. Addiction,
       88(7), 997-1002.

Ross, H. L., McCleary, R., & LaFree, G. (1990). Can mandatory jail laws deter drunk driving?
       The Arizona case. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 81(1), 156-170.

Roth, R., Voas, R., & Marques, P. (2007). Interlocks for first offenders: Effective? Traffic Injury
       Prevention, 8(4), 346-352.

Schell, T. L., Chan, K. S., & Morral, A. R. (2006). Predicting DUI recidivism: Personality,
        attitudinal, and behavioral risk factors. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 82(1), 33-40.

Shepard, M. A., & Stoveken, C. A. (1993). Convicted impaired drivers' knowledge about
      alcohol: Relevance for program development. Journal of Alcohol Drug Education, 38,
      113-122.

Socie, E. M., Wagner, S. A., & Hopkins, R. S. (1994). The relative effectiveness of sanctions
       applied to first-time drunken driving offenders. American Journal of Preventive
       Medicine, 10(2), 85-90.

Soderstrom, C. A., Ballesteros, M. F., Dischinger, P. C., Kerns, T. J., Flint, R. D., & Smith, G. S.
       (2001). Alcohol/drug abuse, driving convictions, and risk-taking dispositions among
       trauma center patients. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 33(6), 771-782.

Speiglman, R. (1997). Mandated AA attendance for recidivist drinking drivers: Policy issues.
       Addiction, 92, 1133-1136.




                                                60
Sprang, G. (1997). Victim impact panels: An examination of the effectiveness of this program on
       lowering recidivism and changing offenders' attitudes about drinking and driving.
       Journal of Social Service Research, 22(3), 73-84.

Tauber, J., & Snavely, K. (1999). Drug courts: A research agenda. Alexandria, VA: National
       Drug Court Institute (NDCI).

Taxman, F. S., & Piquero, A. (1998). On preventing drunk driving recidivism: An examination
     of rehabilitation and punishment approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26(2), 129-
     433.

Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (2002). DUI Best Sentencing Practices
      Guidebook. Salt Lake City, UT: author.

Voas, R. B., Marques, P. R., Tippetts, A. S., & Bierness, D. J. (1999). The Alberta interlock
       program: The evaluation of a province-wide program on DUI recidivism. Addiction,
       94(12), 1849-1859.

Weinrath, M. (1997). The ignition interlock program for drunk drivers: A multivariate test.
      Crime Delinquency, 43, 42-59.

Weinrath, M., & Gartrell, J. (2001). Specific deterrence and sentence length: The case of drunk
      drivers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17(2), 105-122.

Wells-Parker, E., & Williams, M. (2002). Enhancing the effectiveness of traditional
       interventions with drinking drivers by adding brief individual intervention components.
       Journal of Studies on Alcohol & Drugs, 56, 655-664.

Wells-Parker, E., Anderson, J. B., Landrum, J. W., & Snow, W. R. (1988). Long-term
       effectiveness of probation, short-term intervention and LAI administration for reducing
       DUI recidivism. British Journal of Addiction, 83, 415-421.

Wells-Parker, E., Anderson, B. J., McMillen, D. L., & Landrum, J. W. (1989). Interactions
       among DUI offender characteristics and traditional intervention modalities: A long-term
       recidivism follow-up. British Journal of Addiction, 84, 381-390.

Wells-Parker, E., Bangert-Drowns, R., McMillen, R., & Williams, M. (1995). Final results from
       a meta-analysis of remedial interventions with drink/drive offenders. Addiction, 90, 907-
       926.

White, W. L., & Gasperin, D. L. (2006). Management of the high-risk offender. Management of
       the high-risk offender. Institute for Legal and Policy Studies, Center for State Policy and
       Leadership, University of Illinois at Springfield.




                                                61
Wieczorek, W. F., Miller, B. A., & Nochajski, T. H. (1993). The limited utility of BAC for
      identifying alcohol-related problems among DUI offenders. Journal of Studies on
      Alcohol, 53(5), 415−419.

Wieczorek, W. F., Mirand, A. L., & Callahan, C. P. (1994). Perception of the risk of arrest for
      drinking and driving. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 21(3), 312-324.

Williams, K., & Hawkins, G. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical
       review. Law & Society Review, 20(4), 545-572.

Willis, C., Lybrand, S., & Bellamy, N. (2004). Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for
        reducing drink driving recidivism. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, Art.
        No.: CD004168.

Wilson, R. J. (1991). Subtypes of DWI's and high risk drivers: Implications for differential
      intervention. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 7, 1-12.

Woodall, W.G., Delaney, H., Rogers, E., & Wheeler, D. (n.d.). A randomized trial of victim
     impact panels’ DWI deterrence effectiveness.




                                                62
                                         Appendix A
                       Literature Review on DUI Offender Interventions

       Deterrence

There are four main purposes of criminal punishment: incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation,
and deterrence. Laws created to address drunk driving are based on either incapacitation (e.g.,
mandatory jail time) or deterrence (either specific or general). General deterrence is aimed at the
public (e.g., media campaigns, publicized check points) and specific deterrence is aimed at
reducing the likelihood that an individual will reoffend in the future (e.g., license suspensions,
substance abuse treatment). In order for specific deterrence to be effective, punishments must be
swift, certain, and severe enough to discourage future criminal acts (Becccaria, 1764/1963).

One of the greatest challenges posed to the deterrence of drunk driving is the low likelihood of
detection. In fact, it has estimated that a person would have to drink and drive anywhere from
100 to 1000 times before being arrested on a DUI (Beitel, Sharp, & Glauz, 2000; Ross &
Gusfield, 1992). Wieczorek, Mirand, and Callahan (1994) theorized that drinking drivers would
have a lower perceived risk of arrest; however, they actually found no differences between the
two groups’ self-reported drinking and driving behaviors. Additionally, heavy drinkers perceived
their risk of arrest as high, but this perception had no effect on their drinking behavior. Likewise,
Ross (1992) noted that although much of the general public perceives the risk of detection for
drinking and driving as high, the perceived risk is not strong enough of a deterrent to change
their behavior. Wieczorek and colleagues (1994) also examined whether an individual who
knows someone arrested on a DUI would have a higher perceived risk of arrest. Surprisingly,
they found this population had a low perceived risk of arrest. The authors provided a possible
explanation of this finding, suggesting that their lower perceived risk of arrest may have been
based on their knowledge of the number of times this person drove drunk before actually being
caught.

Another challenge for deterring drinking and driving is that there is a perception by much of the
general public that not all DUI offenders are severely punished, and that many offenders are
never convicted of the charges. This belief was supported by a study in 2001 that found that most
drunk drivers who are involved in vehicular accidents and require emergency room medical
attention are not ultimately arrested or convicted (Soderstrom et al., 2001). As long as the public
perceives detection and punishment for drinking and driving as unlikely, general deterrence
measures will continue to be ineffective at reducing drinking and driving (Nichols & Ross, 1990;
Ross, 1993). Additionally, Houston and Richardson (2004) argued that “policies based on
deterrence theory are likely to be least effective for the main target of these policies (frequent
drink-drivers) and are likely to be unnecessary for non-drink-drivers.”

       Incarceration

Many researchers have found that laws created to increase the severity of DUI offenses in an
attempt to deter the public from drinking and driving are largely ineffective because the public’s
perception of the likelihood of detection is still very low (Ross, 1992; Grube & Kearney, 1983).
In fact, Grube and Kearney (1983) suggested that policies aimed at increasing the detection of



                                                 63
DUI offenders, or at least the perception of detection, are more effective than those policies that
increase the severity of punishment. Nevertheless, some states continue to require all DUI
offenders to spend some time in jail. These mandatory jail laws, though popular with the public,
have not been shown to reduce recidivism (Ross, McCleary, & LaFree, 1993; Grube & Kearney,
1983), and some have even found jail to increase recidivism rates (DeYoung, 1997; Socie,
Wagner, & Hopkins, 1994).

DeYoung (1997) found that first-time DUI offenders who served jail time had nearly twice as
many new DUI convictions as those first-time offenders who received treatment and drivers
license suspensions, in lieu of jail. Similarly, Socie et al. (1994) found that DUI offenders who
served jail time were twice as likely to be arrested on a new DUI charge as offenders who
participated in a driver intervention program. On the other hand, Courtright, Berg, and
Mutchnick (2000) found no adverse effects of jail sanctions on DUI offenders and Weinrath and
Gartrell (2001) actually reported moderate deterrent effects of jail on chronic offenders (four or
more convictions).

The findings from the Weinrath and Gartrell (2001) study are interesting, not only because they
were so different from other studies, but also because the observed effect was on chronic DUI
offenders. Theoretically, the threat of jail works as a deterrent to the public because most people
have family and work responsibilities and want to avoid the stigma attached to being labeled a
criminal. As such, these deterrent measures have been found to be most effective with middle
class people (Ross, McCleary, & LaFree, 1990). Because chronic offenders often lack ties to the
community, have high rates of unemployment, and have already been labeled as offenders, it
would be expected that these deterrent efforts would be ineffective with this population
(Williams & Hawkins, 1986). In addition to finding a deterrent effect of jail with chronic
offenders, Weinrath and Gartrell (2001) also found that although shorter sentences were less
effective in reducing recidivism than longer sentences, no additional benefit was observed for
sentences that extended past six months. The authors therefore suggested an optimal jail sentence
length for chronic DUI offenders of five to six months.

A major concern regarding the use of jail with DUI offenders centers around the scarcity of jail
resources and high costs associated with incarceration. In addition to the exorbitant costs of
incarceration, there is a growing body of research showing the use of jail to deter drinking and
driving is ineffective, and possibly counterproductive. As a result, many jurisdictions have
shifted their focus to more community-based alternatives to incarceration. In addition to
sentencing more DUI offenders to interventions in the community, many programs have shifted
their emphasis from punitive to more rehabilitation. Such a shift is supported by the literature. In
fact, Taxman and Piquero (1998) found DUI offenders who received rehabilitative services to
recidivate at a lower rate than those who were punished. This was true for both first-time and
repeat offenders. An examination of the most popular interventions for DUI offenders is
provided below.

       Community-Based Interventions

DUI Courts. Preliminary studies suggest that DUI Courts may be effective interventions for DUI
offenders. For instance, an evaluation of the Anchorage Felony DUI Court and Bethel



                                                 64
Therapeutic Court (a therapeutic court designed primarily for alcohol offenses) found significant
support for DUI Courts. Both courts experienced a significant decrease in the number of arrests
and number of days spent incarcerated for program graduates, compared to similar offenders
who were managed in a standard court setting. Additionally, a review of offender files indicated
that program graduates demonstrated improved family stability, employment, education, and
financial status, compared to the comparison group (Alaska Judicial Council, 2005).

Success has also been demonstrated in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan DWI/Drug Court
Program (Guerin & Pitts, 2002). Higher re-offense rates were noted among standard probationers
at six and twelve months after exiting the program (9% for DUI/Drug Court, compared to 18%
for probation comparison group). This higher rate of recidivism among the probation comparison
group was observed even though many of these individuals were incarcerated for some of the
measured time (making the possible time to reoffend less than that for DUI/Drug Court
participants).

While the previously mentioned studies suggested that DUI Courts are effective in reducing
recidivism, they were not experimental in nature. Breckenridge, Winfree, Maupin, and Clason
(2000) published the first experimental study that examined recidivism rates in first-time DUI
offenders assigned to either DUI Court or to routine municipal court processing. Offenders were
assessed on a number of recidivism measures such as re-arrests and convictions for traffic and
various other offenses. No significant differences were observed between the two groups on any
of the recidivism variables. One possible explanation provided for the lack of observed influence
may have been the small study sample size (only 152 participants) or that recidivism was defined
as convictions rather than arrests, and therefore may not have yielded an accurate picture of
offender violations. The authors did, however, note a significant difference between the
recidivism rates of offenders classified as alcohol dependant and non-dependant offenders,
suggesting that level of alcohol dependence may influence recidivism rates rather than
participation in a DUI Court.

In their evaluation of the Rio Hondo DUI Court, MacDonald, Morral, Raymond, and Eibner
(2007) looked at re-arrests in addition to convictions when determining recidivism. Second and
third-time DUI convicted offenders were randomly assigned to DUI Court participation or a
“mandatory minimum control” group. The difference between the two interventions was
primarily that control participants appeared before the court three to four times as opposed to
five to seven times and received no treatment, electronic monitoring, or breathalyzer monitoring.
This evaluation found that DUI Court participation had little effect on recidivism outcomes.
Specifically, there was no significant difference between DUI Court participants and mandatory
minimum participants on measures of self-reported or official records of drinking and driving,
self-reported drinking behaviors, treatment completion, experience of stressful life events, or jail
time served. The authors provided one explanation for the lack of observed success; at the time
of the research study, due to jail crowding in Los Angeles, DUI Court participants served little or
no jail time before being released to participate in the court. In contrast, control participants
spent an average of two weeks in jail before being released. One hypothesis, provided by the
authors, was that without the threat of jail time, DUI Court participants were less motivated to
abstain from drinking and driving. The authors suggested that other courts could learn from this,
and that careful consideration be made when deciding the appropriate length of jail-time



                                                65
necessary before a plea is made. It should be noted, however, that this viewpoint was based on
the authors’ speculations.

Determining the cost effectiveness of DUI Courts can present a challenge given that a number of
variables contribute to “cost effectiveness” and the fact that accurate comparisons to other courts
are not easily acquired. One study attempted to isolate cost savings or loses by comparing a
DUI/Drug Court to a probation program (Guerin & Pitts, 2002). Offenders served in the
Bernalillo Metropolitan DWI/Drug Court spent fewer days in jail and fewer days assigned to the
Community Custody Program (CCP; community-based supervision and treatment) than
probationers. Due to this fact, the researchers concluded that the DWI/Drug Court saved
taxpayers over $200,000 in combined jail and CCP costs over that of probationers (over a 32-
month period). Due to the high costs associated with running a DUI Court, Eibner, Morral,
Pacula, and MacDonald (2006) found cost-savings for third-time DUI offenders, but not for first
or second-time offenders. The authors suggested that DUI Courts are a cost-effective
intervention for chronic DUI offenders.

Taken as a whole, the literature indicates that the effectiveness of DUI Courts is, at best, mixed.
Evaluations of individual courts suggest that DUI Courts have demonstrated decreased
recidivism and increase psychosocial functioning among participants; however, rigorous
experimental evaluations of DUI courts have found little, if any, improvements in such variables
over that of traditional court participation or probation. These experimental studies cast some
doubt over the effectiveness of DUI Courts in reducing recidivism; however, additional research
is needed before any conclusions should be made.

Probation. Probation plays an important role in the supervision of DUI offenders serving their
sentences in the community; however, research on the effectiveness of probation in reducing
recidivism among DUI offenders is mixed. Wells-Parker, Anderson, McMillen, and Landrum
(1989) examined DUI offender characteristics in relation to probation effectiveness and found
that probation was least effective with middle-aged offenders and most effective with well-
educated older offenders and young well-educated minority offenders. Wells-Parker, Anderson,
Landrum, and Snow (1988) found that probation had a small, but statistically significant, effect
on reducing long-term recidivism. However, Courtright et al. (2000) found that increased
supervision did not increase the likelihood of success and actually had a slightly, though not
statistically significant, negative effect on risk of reconviction. It should be noted, however, that
other studies have found increased supervision to result in negative outcomes due to an increase
in detection of violations and new charges (Courtright et al., 2000; Petersilia & Turner, 1990).

Treatment. The literature consistently supports the need for treatment in curbing DUI offenses;
however, studies have reported mixed findings regarding the effectiveness of treatment programs
in reducing recidivism among DUI offenders. Although some studies found that DUI offenders
who participated in treatment had lower recidivism rates (Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Socie et al.,
1994), others found no such effects (Courtright et al., 2000; Holden, 1983). Two meta-analyses
conducted on the topic, found that treatment (both psychotherapy and self-help groups)
contributes to reduced recidivism over regular court sanctions, such as jail time or fines (Wells-
Parker, Bangert-Drowns, McMillen, and Williams, 1995; McKnight & Voas, 1991). Wells-
Parker and colleagues (1995) also found that remediation (e.g., psychotherapy, self help groups)



                                                 66
alone reduced DUI recidivism and alcohol-related automobile crashes by 7-9%. When
considering the costs associated with the alternative, such a finding is significant.

While the need for treatment in reducing DUI recidivism has been established in the literature, an
understanding of the specific modalities that contribute to the most improved outcomes is less
clear. The aforementioned meta-analysis attempted to answer this question by comparing
numerous treatment modalities. After analyzing over 200 studies of alcohol treatment for DUI
offenders, the authors found that a combination of modalities, specifically substance abuse
education in conjunction with psychotherapy, counseling and some type of follow-up service
(e.g., visit with probation officer or case manager) proved most effective in reducing recidivism.
In fact, this combination of treatment modalities was found to be more effective than any isolated
modality or intervention (such as the use of Antabuse, regular probation, or Alcoholics
Anonymous) (Wells-Parker et al., 1995). While these findings represent the “gold standard” of
results, individual studies add valuable insight into the treatment of DUI offenders.

Deyoung (1997) conducted a study of a three-pronged mandated treatment program for offenders
in California, with program intensity increasing with each repeated offense. Program duration
ranged from three to 30 months, starting with a minimum of 10 hours alcohol/drinking and
driving education, 10 hours counseling, and 10 additional hours of education or counseling. The
most intensive program required a minimum of 18 hours of education, 117 hours counseling,
120-300 hours of community service, and "close and regular" face-to face contact with staff. In
comparing participants in all three phases of treatment to other offenders (driver license
restriction/ suspension only), Deyoung found that treatment combined with license restriction or
suspension contributed to the lowest DUI recidivism rates. The author also noted that the length
of time in alcohol treatment (30 vs.18 months) appeared to have no effect of the effectiveness of
the treatment. This finding was consistent with Wells-Parker and colleagues (1995) finding that
neither the length of an intervention, nor the number of hours of treatment completed contributed
to a decrease in DUI recidivism.

Individual and group psychotherapy have long played a significant role in the treatment of
alcohol abuse and DUI rehabilitation. In fact, Guerin and Pitts (2002) found that clients who
participated in at least one individual counseling session were more likely to graduate from
DUI/Drug Court than those who did not. The effectiveness of group therapy, however, is less
clear. In fact, Wells-Parker and colleagues (1995) found that Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
attendance, when used as the sole intervention strategy, was actually associated with increased
recidivism rates. Another study found that while treatment participation reduced an offender’s
risk if reoffending, AA attendance demonstrated no effect on recidivism (Taxman & Piquero,
1998). Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the mandatory participation in self-
help groups, because participation in such groups is supposed to be voluntary. Speiglman (1997)
argued that participation in self-help groups may not only be ineffective when not entered into
voluntarily, but may actually have a negative effect on the voluntary participants and the overall
effectiveness of the program.

Similarly, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan DWI/Drug Court program found that participation
in group therapy did not increase the likelihood of program graduation (Guerin & Pitts, 2002). It
should be noted; however, when comparing these results, that the elements of self-help groups



                                                67
and group psychotherapy differ in many ways. While these results provide a compelling
argument against the use of group therapy, DUI offenders in Mississippi, treated with group
therapy, probation, and education demonstrated decreased recidivism compared to those on
standard probation (Landrum et al., 1982). This suggests that a combination of treatment,
perhaps including group therapy, is the best rehabilitation strategy (Wells-Parker et al., 1988,
Wells-Parker et al., 1995). The research on group therapy, self-help groups, or group
psychotherapy for treating DUI offenders is at best mixed.

When determining the effectiveness of DUI courts, questions have been raised regarding the
extent to which being coerced into DUI court participation limits treatment effectiveness. Most
researchers agree that treatment can still be effective, even when not entered into voluntarily
(White & Gasperin, 2006; Dunham & Mauss, 1979; Ninonuevo & Hoffmann, 1993). One study
attempted to assess this by comparing groups based on the level of coercion in their referral to
treatment, with the least coercive group being those self referred (Dunham & Mauss, 1979). One
of the four groups consisted of those referred to treatment from a DUI Court. The comparison of
groups found that those referred from DUI Courts demonstrated the most treatment success of all
four groups. “Treatment success” was defined as “stable abstinence”, or lack of alcohol usage, as
determined by the offender’s treatment staff. This study clearly suggests that DUI courts, despite
the level of coercion, can contribute to improved treatment outcomes over other, less coercive
methods (such as referrals from other alcohol treatment facilities and physicians).

A similar finding was observed among DUI offenders mandated to outpatient chemical
dependency treatment. Here, they found that mandated DUI offenders demonstrated similar
success rates in all areas including reported abstinence, legal involvement, and employment
when compared to those not legally mandated to attend treatment, suggesting that coercion to
treatment does not limit its effectiveness (Ninonuevo & Hoffmann, 1993). It should be noted,
however, that the observed differences noted in these studies may have been a result of being
court-ordered to participate in treatment. In addition to treatment, most participants also receive
supervision and compliance monitoring (such as breathalyzers, IID, etc.) and sanctions for non-
compliance. These additional variables most likely affect participants’ abstinence from alcohol.
Additionally, the mere fact that participants are court-ordered to participate does not
automatically imply coercion, which suggests a lack of motivation on the part of the participant.

Educational Programs. The effectiveness of education as an intervention, generally consisting
of DUI School or some type of program aimed at educating DUI offenders about alcohol abuse
and associated risks, has been found to be most effective when combined with other treatment
modalities, such as individual and/or group psychotherapy (Wells-Parker et al., 1988; Deyoung,
1997; Wells-Parker et al., 1995). Some studies have found that educational program participants
successfully change their attitudes and self-reported behaviors (Rider et al., 2006; Mann,
Wingillis, Leigh, Anglin, & Blefgen, 1986) and are less likely to be reconvicted of a DUI
(Taxman & Piquero, 1998); however, others no such effects (Shepard & Stoveken, 1993).
Additionally, Mann et al., (1986) found that the positive outcomes reported from educational
programs are strong immediately following participation, but quickly dissipate.

One of the main complaints about educational programs is that many DUI offenders already have
substantial knowledge of the effects of alcohol and education is not necessary. Shepard and



                                                68
Stoveken (1993) suggest that programs spend less time on building knowledge and place more of
an emphasis on decision-making and planning for future events. One study examined the
Preventing Alcohol-Related Convictions (PARC) program in Florida. This program takes an
educational approach toward reducing drinking and driving behavior among first-time offenders
but emphasizes control of driving behavior, rather than the traditional approach of controlling
drinking behavior. Findings from this study suggested that the PARC program is as effective as
the traditional approach in increasing readiness to change and planning ahead to avoid driving to
locations where drinking may occur. PARC participants were also found to have significantly
lower rearrest rates up to two years after exiting the program (Rider et al., 2006; Rider, Voas,
Kelley-Baker, Grosz, & Murphy, 2007). Due to the variety of educational programs studied, it is
necessary that additional research be conducted in this area, before any conclusions can be drawn
regarding their effectiveness.

Victim Impact Panels. The concept behind Victim Impact Panels (VIPs) was first introduced in
the 1980s by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) organization. Victim Impact Panels
(VIPs) provide a forum for victims and their families to share their experiences and feelings with
DUI offenders and try to reach them on an emotional level in order to change their attitudes
toward drinking and driving (Badovinac, 1994). C'de Baca, Lapham, Paine, and Skipper (2000)
looked at the sentencing practices of judges in New Mexico and found that female judges were
more likely to refer offenders to VIPs and the judges in this study were less likely to refer
Hispanics, males, and offenders with lower education levels (less than 12 years). Additionally,
judges were more likely to refer young (under 30 years of age) unmarried offenders. Research on
the efficacy of Victim Impact Panels (VIPs) is mixed, with some studies finding them effective
in reducing recidivism (Fors & Rojek, 1999; Sprang, 1997; Rojek, Coverdill, & Fors, 2003;
Woodall, Delaney, Rogers, & Wheeler, n.d.), and others finding little or no effect (C'de Baca et
al., 2000; New Mexico Criminal & Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, 2004; Polacsek et al.,
2001) or a negative effect on participants (Woodall et al., n.d.; C'de Baca, Lapham, Liang, &
Skipper, 2001).

Sprang (1997) found that DUI offenders who participated in VIPs had lower DUI rearrest rates
(9.3%, compared to 18.7%) than a comparison group, living in neighboring counties that did not
offer VIPs. Fors and Rojek (1999) found that rearrest rates during the first year were lower
among the group attending VIPs (5.9%, compared to 15.1%) and that the difference was most
drastic among younger (age 26-35) white males who are first-time offenders. Rojek et al. (2003)
found that participation in VIPs cut the likelihood of arrest among their population in half. A
couple studies found that VIPs caused positive changes in attitudes towards drinking and driving
(Sprang, 1997; Badovinac, 1994) and alcohol consumption (Woodall et al., n.d.). However,
Rojek et al. (2003) found that although the effects of VIP participation on recidivism were strong
during the first two years, the effect appeared to dwindle out after this point.

On the other hand, two studies in New Mexico did not see any decrease in recidivism rates
among offenders sentenced to attend VIPs and DUI School, as compared to offenders attending
DUI School only (New Mexico Criminal & Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, 2004;
Polacsek et al., 2001). Another study of DUI offenders found that VIP participation did not
reduce rearrest rates over a follow-up period that ranged from two and a half (2.5) to eight (8)
years for first-time offenders, but increased the likelihood of rearrest (more than twice as likely)



                                                 69
among female repeat offenders (C’De Baca et al., 2001). Likewise, Woodall et al. (n.d.) found
that repeat offenders who participated in VIPs and an educational program had more DUI arrests
in the two years following participation than a group of similar offenders who only received
education.

While these findings are far from conclusive, they do suggest that VIPs may be one of many
effective interventions available for treating DUI offenders, especially young male first-time
offenders. However, additional research needs to be conducted on their use with repeat offenders
(especially female repeat offenders) in order to better understand their effect on these
populations.

Ignition Interlock Devices. According to the New Mexico Criminal and Juvenile Justice
Coordinating Council (2004), IIDs installed on the cars of DUI offenders blocked a total of 7,137
drinking and driving attempts over the course of one year. Most studies on the effectiveness of
IID in reducing DUI recidivism found a significant decrease in drinking and driving during the
time period when the IID was installed; however this effect diminished once the device was
removed from the vehicle (Beck, Rauch, Baker, & Williams, 1999; Willis, Lybrand, & Bellamy,
2004; Raub, Lucke, & Wark, 2003; Roth, Voas, & Marques, 2007; Voas, Marques, Tippetts, &
Bierness, 1999). For instance, although Raub et al. (2003) found a lower recidivism rate among
offenders while IID devices were installed on their cars, (1.3%, compared to 8.7% respectably),
no difference was observed between the groups once the device was removed.

It should be noted, however, that a few studies have found IID programs to continue to reduce
recidivism years after the devices were removed (Bjerre & Thorsson, 2008; Weinrath, 1997;
Fulkerson, 2003). Weinrath (1997) compared DUI offenders enrolled in an IID program to
offenders receiving only driver’s license suspensions and found that IID participants were three
times less likely to drink and drive than the comparison group. Additionally, it was found that
IID participants continued to recidivate at a lower rate than those receiving license suspensions
15 months after the IID device was removed, suggesting that the effects of an IID program can
last beyond the physical implementation of the program.

Bjerre and Thorsson (2008) conducted an evaluation of a two-year IID program in Sweden.
Participation in the program was voluntary, and Swedish DUI offenders were given the option of
participating in the program or having their driver’s license suspended for one to two years.
Surprisingly, the authors found that only 11% of those offered the opportunity decided to
participate. This study found a 60% decrease in the DUI recidivism rate and an 80% decrease in
police-reported traffic accidents among those who successfully completed the IID program
(compared to the 5 years prior to the program). This effect was found to last up to four and a half
years after the devices were removed. No change in recidivism rates was observed for the
comparison group (license suspension only). The authors also found that fewer IID program
participants self-reported harmful alcohol consumption one to three years after the device was
removed, than the comparison group. During the follow-up period (up to 5 years), participants
were also involved in substantially fewer traffic accidents. In addition to lower recidivism rates,
a few studies also found that IID participants survived for longer periods of time before having
their first failure event (Morse & Elliott, 1992; Weinrath, 1997). According to Weinrath (1997),




                                                70
IIDs are effective with all types of DUI offenders, including first-time, second-time, and repeat
offenders.

Driver’s License Suspensions. Many studies have found that driver’s license suspensions
decreased DUI reoffending and vehicular offenses during the period of suspension (Ross &
Gonzales, 1988; Weinrath, 1997; DeYoung, 1997; Gouvin, 1986; Nichols & Ross, 1990; Wilson,
1991). In a comprehensive meta-analysis reviewing numerous treatment modalities for repeat
DUI offenders, one study found that recidivism was significantly reduced in alcohol and non-
alcohol related incidents when licensing sanctions were imposed in conjunction with some type
of rehabilitation service such as psychotherapy or education (Wells-Parker et al., 1995). A few
studies found no statistically significant difference in recidivism rates among DUI offenders with
suspended licenses (Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Socie et al., 1994).

Many studies, including those that reported decreased recidivism rates, reported that many
individuals continued to drive while their licenses were suspended (Ross & Gonzales, 1988;
Nichols & Ross, 1990). Ross and Gonzales (1988) conducted interviews with 71 DUI offenders
with suspended driver’s licenses and found that although more than half (66%) admitted to
continue driving while their licenses were suspended, most reported less frequent driving.
Interviewees also claimed that in addition to driving less frequently, they were also more
cautious drivers, and they consciously avoided driving in certain areas or during times of the day
that they believed would increase the likelihood of being stopped by the police.
When imposing a sentence for a license suspension, caution should be taken regarding the length
of the sentence. It has been suggested that suspensions are only effective when imposed for 12
months or longer and suspensions lasting 3 months or less have been shown ineffective (New
Mexico Criminal & Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, 2004). Licensing restrictions can play
an important role in the rehabilitation of DUI offenders, and parameters such as increased time
imposed and additional treatment will greatly increase the effectiveness of this intervention.

Electronic Monitoring. Courtright and colleagues (2000) found that offenders randomly
assigned to house arrest with electronic monitoring, rather than jail, showed successful treatment
attendance and employment; however, the duration of monitoring was not long enough (average
of about 1 month) to have any last long-term effects. Likewise, although Lapham, C'de Baca,
Lapidus, and McMillan (2007) found positive effects of electronic monitoring over the short-
term (96% decrease in traffic arrest rates over those with standard conditions), it demonstrated
little long-term value in reducing traffic offenses. These findings suggest that electronic
monitoring is an effective method of incapacitating a DUI offender (in lieu of jail), but has little,
if any, rehabilitative value.

Drug Testing. Guerin and Pitts (2002) found that the number of drug screenings significantly
influenced whether or not the client graduated from the program (graduates received more than
60 drug tests on average while in the program, compared to less than 40 for those who did not
graduate). Additionally, having one dirty UA increased the odds that a client would not graduate
by 0.25 times. No studies were found that reported on the effect of drug testing on future drunk
driving behavior.




                                                 71
Acupuncture. Acupuncture is an alternative treatment modality being implemented in various
problem-solving courts, including DUI courts. Although its use is sometimes viewed as
controversial, some research has shown acupuncture to curb alcohol and other drug cravings. In
fact, one study found that 62% of DUI court participants who had at least one acupuncture
treatment went on to graduate from the program (Guerin & Pitts, 2002). This study demonstrated
strong support for the use of acupuncture treatment in DUI Courts; however, additional research
is needed before any conclusions should be made regarding the effectiveness of its use among
DUI offenders.

       Predictors of Program Success

Some studies have found that female DUI offenders have more extensive psychiatric histories
and more likely to report multiple disorders than their male counterparts (LaPlante, Nelson,
Odegaard, LaBrie, & Shaffer, 2008; McCaul & Furst, 1994). Additionally, women have been
found to be at increased risk of depression, low self-esteem, medical conditions related to alcohol
use, and use of drinking to cope with life crises (McCaul & Furst, 1994). A number of studies
have found that DUI offenders who suffer from depression are at an increased risk of DUI
recidivism and future risky driving behavior (Wilson, 1991; Wells-Parker & Williams, 2002).
Wells-Parker and Williams (2002) found that depressed DUI offenders who received two brief
intervention sessions and follow-up in addition to the traditional group intervention were 35%
less likely to recidivate than those who only received the group intervention. Additionally, in
their study that compared participants in a women-only program with those in a traditional
mixed-gender program, McCaul and Furst (1994) found that the participants in the women-only
program remained in treatment longer, had a higher rate of successful completion, and
demonstrated improved emotional/mental and physical health outcomes over those women in the
mixed-gender program. The above studies point out the different needs of female DUI offenders
and suggest that a program designed specifically to address their needs demonstrates the best
outcomes.

Level of education may also impact the effectiveness of treatment among DUI offenders. For
instance, Wells-Parker et al. (1989) found that short-term rehabilitative programs were relatively
effective with participants with lower levels of education (less than 12 years), but may have had
a negative effect on highly educated participants. Other factors that have been studied less, but
have been shown to influence DUI offender success are number of dependents (as dependants
increase, so do the odds that a client will be unsuccessful in drug court) and number of failures to
appear (FTA) in court (as FTAs increase so does the likelihood the client will not graduate), and
number of previous DUI convictions (Dunham & Mauss, 1979; Guerin & Pitts, 2002; Wells-
Parker et al., 1988).

       Predictors of Recidivism

Younger DUI offenders have been found to be at increased risk of reoffending compared to their
older counterparts (Weinrath & Gartrell, 2001; Taxman & Piquero, 1998; Socie et al., 1994;
Lapham et al., 1997) and Green (1989) found that unmarried DUI offenders were at an increased
risk of reoffending. Some studies have suggested that a person’s prior driving record, not just
their DUI history, can be a valuable tool in predicting recidivism (Taxman & Piquero, 1998;



                                                72
Cavaiola, Strohmetz, & Abreo, 2007; Peck, Arstein-Kerslake, & Helander, 1994; Wilson, 1991).
For instance, Peck et al. (1994) found that DUI offenders with higher rates of prior traffic
accidents were at an increased risk of recidivating. In fact, two of the most important underlying
factors for predicting drinking and driving recidivism were found to be a person’s previous
driving record and the degree of their drinking problem (Peck et al., 1994; Green, 1989; Schell,
Chan, & Morral, 2006). As such, Schell and colleagues (2006) argue that DUI recidivism can be
reduced by reducing alcohol consumption; however, Taxman and Piquero (1998) found that
abstinence from alcohol had no effect on risk of reconviction.

Additionally, Taxman and Piquero (1998) found that repeat offenders were more likely to
recidivate than first-time offenders, and LaBrie, Kidman, Albanese, Peller, & Shaffer (2007)
found that risk of recidivism increases with severity of criminality. Additionally, DUI offenders
who have also been convicted of other types of crimes are at an increased risk of recidivism
(Weinrath & Gartrell, 2001; LaBrie et al., 2007; Nochajski, Miller, Wieczorek, & Whitney,
1993). LaBrie et al. (2007) found that DUI offenders with property crimes on their criminal
history were 1.4 times more likely to be rearrested for a DUI and those with person crimes were
twice as likely. The authors suggested that offenders with extensive criminal histories that
include offenses that are not alcohol or substance abuse related most likely have other criminality
issues that are not adequately addressed in alcohol and drug treatment.




                                                73

								
To top