© 2005 Behavioral Health Research Institute of the Southwest
612 Encino Place NE / Albuquerque, NM 87102 / 505.244.3099 / www.bhrcs.org

Review of Research on Screening Programs
for Convicted Drunk Driving Offenders
Funded by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE STUDY

Drunk-driving arrests occur frequently. Of the 14.6 million criminal infraction arrests of adults in 1994, the most common was driving while impaired (DWI) (FBI web site, 1998). About one-third of those arrested become repeat offenders, a group notable for increased involvement in fatal alcohol-related traffic crashes (Transportation Research Board/National Research Council, 1995). An estimated minimum of 35% to 40% of all fatally injured drinking drivers have a prior arrest for DWI (Simpson, 1995). Because of the dangers posed by these offenders, a great deal of effort has been directed toward identifying arrested or convicted drunk drivers at high risk for re-offending (Wieczorek et al., 1992, McMillen, 1992, Peck et al., 1994, Lapham et al., 1997).

Highway safety advocates and public health professionals have suggested that an arrest for DWI offers a valuable opportunity to identify persons with substance abuse disorders and to refer them for treatment. Conducting an assessment of alcohol and other drug use was among the recommendations of a national panel on "Sentencing Options for DWI Offenders" organized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration et al, 1997). Members of the panel included judges, prosecutors, and researchers. The majority of states mandate that offenders convicted of DWI undergo screening to determine the nature and extent of their alcohol problems. Some screening programs evaluate offenders’ alcohol-related problems and little else, using the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) (Selzer, 1971) or other self-report instruments to identify serious alcohol problems. Other programs, such as the Lovelace Comprehensive Screening Program (LCSP) administered through our center, evaluate the offenders’ use of other drugs of abuse, recidivism risk, personality factors, and other issues that may be related to impaired driving. Some programs require offenders to meet individually with trained counselors. Others do not require an interview and make treatment recommendations solely on the basis of brief, self-report screening instruments. Those with identified alcohol or drug problems are referred to treatment.

Many standardized instruments have been used for DWI screening and initial assessment (see Allen and Columbus, 1995 for a comprehensive review of alcohol assessment instruments). The majority, however, were normed on populations other than DWI offenders and were not developed specifically for use in a court-mandated setting. Therefore, many questions remain about the efficacy of screening instruments in determining the alcohol diagnoses of offenders. Instruments for which normative data have been collected from DWI offender populations include the MAST (Selzer, 1971), the Mortimer-Filkins Questionnaire (Webb, 1990), the Driver Risk Inventory (DRI) (Lindeman et al, 1987), the Substance Abuse Life Circumstance Evaluation (SALCE) (ADE, 1986), the Lovelace Comprehensive Screening Instrument (Lapham et al, 1996) and the Alcohol Use Inventory (AUI) (Horn et al, 1990). All have been evaluated for usefulness in predicting DWI recidivism (Lacey et al., in press). Beirness (1991), who reviewed 20 instruments used in DWI screening, and Popkin and colleagues (1988) suggest that future research is needed to provide normative statistics/profiles and to evaluate predictive validity of these instruments for DWI populations.

Investigators also have suggested that the screening assessment itself is a brief intervention since the person completes assessments, meets with a certified counselor, and receives feedback about the results of the assessment (Chang et al. Submitted). Yet there has been no systematic research on whether this brief intervention has any benefits with regard to reducing subsequent recidivism or crashes.

There are many barriers to the conduct of research that could answer these questions. Screening procedures, instruments, and follow-up data vary by state and sometimes by jurisdiction. States also have differing laws governing the adjudication of DWI offenders. A synopsis of these laws and statutes has been compiled by the Century Council (The Century Council, 1997). In addition, the quality of traffic records varies from state to state. The purpose of the proposed study is to review both published and unpublished studies in this area. Through this comprehensive review we will fulfill the objectives described below.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Our research objectives are to determine the extent to which data collected by researchers throughout the United States can answer, or shed light on, the following questions:

Instrumentation:

What instruments are used in DWI screening? Is there evidence that certain instruments are better than others in detecting alcohol use problems, or risks for recidivism and traffic crashes?

What do these various measures report regarding the prevalence of alcohol abuse and dependence among first and repeat offenders?

Screening Procedures:

Is there evidence to support the use of personal interviews with offenders, versus simply the administration of self-report instruments?

Is there evidence that the screening process itself, or differences in screening procedures affect recidivism rates, motivation to attend or complete treatment, self-reported drinking behaviors, or subsequent crash rates?

Compliance:

What is the compliance rate with court orders requiring AA attendance or counseling?

Are rates of recidivism and traffic crashes different for those who comply versus those who do not comply with court-mandated treatment?

DWI education programs:

Does the completion of a DWI education program affect recidivism, or the rate of subsequent crashes among those with and without identified alcohol or drug problems?

Reference List

ADE, I. (1986) Substance Abuse Life Circumstances Evaluation (SALCE). P.O. Box 660, Clarkston, MI 48347.

Allen, J. P. and Columbus, M. (1995) Assessing Alcohol Problems: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers, 4, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

Beirness, D. J. (1991) Diagnostic assessment of problem drivers: Review of factors associated with risky and problem driving. Report to Transport Canada.

C-DIS User’s Manual, C-DIS Management Group Inc., 1800 Bank Street, Suite 4A, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1VOW3.

Chang, I.; Lapham, S. C. (1996a) Validity of Self-Reported Criminal Offenses and Traffic Violations in Screening of Driving-While-Intoxicated Offenders. Alcohol & Alcoholism 31, 583-590.

Chang, I.; Lapham, S. C. and Barton, K. J. (1996b) Drinking Environment And Sociodemographic Factors Among DWI Offenders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 57, 659-669.

Chang, I., Lapham, S.C. and Wanberg, K.W. Alcohol Use Inventory: Screening and Assessment of First-time DWI offenders, I, Reliability and Profiles, Submitted for publication.

FBI Web Site: http://www.fbi.gov. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States-1996. Downloaded from web site 12/98.

Hedges, L. V. and Olkin, I. (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis, Academic Press, Inc., Orlando.

Horn, J. L., Wanberg, K. W. and Foster, F. M. (1990) Guide to the Alcohol Use Inventory (AUI). Minneapolis, MN, National Computer Systems, Inc.

Lacey, J. H., Jones, R. K. and Wiliszowski, C. H. (In press) Validation of Problem Drinking Screening Instruments for DWI Offenders. (Report No. Technical Report No. DTNH22-90-C-07287, prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation): )

Lapham, S. C.; Skipper, B. J.; Owen, J. P.; Kleyboecker, K.; Teaf, D.; Thompson, B. and Simpson, G. (1995) Alcohol Abuse Screening Instruments: Normative Test Data Collected from a First DWI Offender Screening Program. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 56, 51-59.

Lapham, S. C.; Skipper, B. J. and 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, 524-530.

Lapham, S. C.; Smith, E.; Chang, I.; Skipper, B. J.; C'de Baca, J.; Baum, G. and Hunt, W. C. (1999) Prevalence rate of alcohol and drug use disorders among convicted first DWI offenders at 5-year follow-up. Submitted for publication

Lapham, S. C., Wanberg, K. W., Timken, D. S. and Barton, K. (1996) A User's Guide to the Lovelace Comprehensive Screening Instrument. (Report No. The Lovelace Institutes, Albuquerque.

Lindeman; Scrimgeour (1987) Driver Risk Inventory (DRI). Behavior Data Systems, Ltd., P.O. Box 32308, Phoenix, AZ 85064.

Glass, G. V.; McGaw, B. and Smith, M. L. (1981) Meta-Analysis in Social Research, SAGE Publications, Inc., Beverly Hills.

McMillen, D. L. (1992) Personality Traits And Behaviors Of Alcohol-Impaired Drivers: A Comparison Of First And Multiple Offenders. Addictive Behaviors 17, 407-414.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1997) A Guide to Sentencing DUI Offenders. (Report No.

Peck, C. R.; Peck, R. C. (1994) The Comparative Effectiveness of Alcohol Rehabilitation and Licensing
Control Actions for Drunk Driving Offenders: A Review of the Literature Evaluating DUI Program Impact in Quasi Experiments. Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving X XY1 - 1985/// 10, 207-215.

Popkin, C. L., Kannenberg, C. H., Lacey, J. H. and Waller, P. F. (1988) Assessment of Classification Instruments Designed to Detect Alcohol Abuse (Final Report). (Report No. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

SAS (1990) SAS-STAT User’s Guide, Version 6, vol. 2, 4th edn. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

Selzer, M. L. (1971) The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The Quest for a New Diagnostic Instrument. Amer J Psychiatry 127, 1653-1658.

Simpson, H. M. (1995) Appendix C2 Who is the Persistent Drinking Driver? Part II: Canada and Elsewhere. Transportation Research Circular 437, 21-25.

The Century Council (1997) National Hardcore Drunk Driver Project. (Report No.

Transportation Research Board/National Research Council (1995) Strategies for Dealing with the Persistent Drinking Driver. Transportation Research Circular 437.

Webb, G. R. (1990) The Mortimer-Filkins test of problem drinking: A review of psychometric properties. British Journal of Addiction 85, 1491-1494.

Wells-Parker, E.; Bangert-Drowns, R. (1990) Meta-Analysis of Research on DUI Remedial Interventions. Alcohol, Drugs And Driving 6 Jul - Dec, 147-160.

Wieczorek, W. F.; Miller, B. A. and Nochajski, T. H. (1992) The Limited Utility of BAC for Identifying Alcohol-Related Problems among DWI Offenders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 53, 415-419.