.' Y P88 I- 1 1 ? 19 DOT HS-805-577 FIRST INTERIMANALYSIS OF FIRST OFFENDER TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS Raymond E. Reis, Jr., Ph.D Lewis A. Davis Comprehensive Driving Under l~e Influence of Alcohol Offender Treatment Demon~alJon Project County of Sacramento Health Department Sacramento, California 95814 Contract No. DOT HS-6-01414 Contract Amt. $2,158,403 L I MARCH 1980 INTERIM REPORT This document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 Prepared For U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
218
Embed
FIRST INTERIM ANALYSIS OF FIRST OFFENDER · PDF fileFIRST INTERIM ANALYSIS OF FIRST OFFENDER TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS Raymond E. Reis, Jr., Ph.D ... vs,ds Multiply by To ... Presiding
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
. ' Y P88 I- 1 1 ? 19
DOT HS-805-577
FIRST INTERIM ANALYSIS OF FIRST OFFENDER TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
Raymond E. Reis, Jr., Ph.D Lewis A. Davis
Comprehensive Driving Under l~e Influence of Alcohol Offender Treatment Demon~alJon Project
County of Sacramento Health Department Sacramento, California 95814
This document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Prepared For U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.
FIRST INTERIM ANALYSIS OF FIRST OFFENDIiR TREA~.IENT E F F E C T I V E N E S S ~" ;"
7. A~.- ~-; sl Raymond E. Reis, Jr., Ph.D., Lewis A. ' D a v i . s
S. Repo,, Oo,e
March, 1980 ~6. P~,~o~m,n9 O,ga~.z=~,o~ Co~*
'~. Perfo,~mln~-.O,g'an,za,,on Repo,t No.
. C D U I - I E - 8 0 - I ""
9. I~e,foem,ng Orga~ixation Name and Address ~ 10. Work Un;~ No.' ~TRAIS)
Comprehensive/Driving Under the Influence of •Alcohol • . ~' ~*~- " ~ Offender Treatment Demonstration (CDuI) Project, Office of Alcoholism, County of Sacramento Health Department , Sacramento, California 95814
12. Spon~sor,ng ~gency I ~ and Addr,es's - • ~ ~, Office Of Driver and Pedestrian Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administra£ion U.S. Department of Transportation~ 400 Seventh St.,S.W Washington; ~ D .C. 20590
15. Supplementary Noles ,
C~ - Clayton J. Hall • :'
] | . Cont:roct'or Grant No.
D O T - H S ~ 6 - 0 1 4 1 4
13. Ty~e'ot Report and Period Coveted
i I n t e r i m R e p o r t 921=77 / I0-29,79
14. Spons0Hng. A g e n c y Co~e
.
16. Abstract
This report is the first interim analysis concerning the effectiveness of the CDUI ProjecE's education programs for first offender DUI's. Treatment effectiveness was assessed in terms of recorded accidents, DUI offenses, and t0ial moving violations occurring subsequentto random assignment. Survival anaiysis was used to c0mpar~ control, home study, and in-classleducation groups. Comparisons:were made for the total research sample (all assigned as 0f Oct0ber, 1979), for two age subgroups, and t~ree diagnostic subgroups (drinking problem severity): A comparison was also made between the researc~ sample and a sample of non-volunteers to assess our ability to generalize results.
Additional analyses were conducted to determine the effect of quarterly letter monitoring and foliow-up interview , procedures on driving behavior.
The results of the treatment group comparisons provided very lit~le=evidence that the education programs had any effect on driving:behavior as of October., • 1979. None of the 18 analyses conducted resulted in statistically significant between group differences. The preliminary nature of these results was stressed,~and an attempt was made to identify consistent patterns in the outcome data.
The results of the letter monitoring-analyses suggested that the procedure maybe counterproductive. The follow-up interviews appeared to have no effect on driving
19. s ~ , ~ t ~ c l o ~ f , lof ,h . . . . po,,) ~" 20. S.o=~,~,x C1o,,~7'(o~ ~ , p°g. ) ~ ';'
Unclassified I : Unclassified
Fo,.'m DOT F 17C0.7 (3-72) Reproduct ion o~ comple t . 'd pag~ ou thor izad
18 "D~str bution;S)atement
D o c u m e n t i s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e U . S . p u b l i c through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
21- No'. el Pcge~
. 214
22. Pr ice
i
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
. ,.• : .
i "
[
+ .
1 ,~ • .
I ~ ,
I y I I l e l
in I t Vd
m'l
in 2 |12
vd ~ mi 2
Ib
t sp Tbsp f l OZ
C pt
q t g a l 113
y d ~
Approximate Conversions to Mehic Measures
.WI~n Yam I I ~ H.
i n c h e s •
• f e a t .
V i l I t l l m i l e s
I I I I I !11: i l l c h a s s q u a r e foot I<luare" y lNds
s q u a l n , m i l e s ac r l l s + .
• s h o r t t o n s
(2000 Ib)
teaGpoons t a b l s s p o o n 8 I l u ~ l ~ n c e s
' cups . p i n t s q u a r t s • g a l l o n s c u b i c f e a t
cub+,: vs,ds
M u l t i p l y b y To F i n d
LENGTH
" 2 . 5 3O
0 .9 1 .6
AREA
6 ,5
O.O9
• 0.8 2 ,61
_ 0 ,4
MASS (weight t 28
0 .46
0 . 9
VOluME
1 5 3 0
O.24 0 .47 0 .95
3.8
0 .03
0 .76
c e n t i n a t e r s c e n t i n t e t e l s
. me te rs k i l o m o t m r S
• TEMPERATURE (OXKt) , • + ' r
, 321
IqlUl l re c l o t i n ~ t e r I q u a r e m e t e r s
I q u ~ / o rn i l tOf I
I q u l l r e k i l l , meters h e c t a l e s
9~ams k i los+ares tonnes
m i l l i l i t e r s m i l l i l i t e r s " m i l l i l i t e r s
l i t e r s l i t e r s ,
l i t e r s
l i t m s
c u b i c metm's c u b i c m e t e r s
' IyIkol
cm cm m km
cm 2 m 2
km 2 -.
ha
O • ko
t
m l m l ml
I
I
. 1
t
OF F a h r e n h e i t 019 (ahe~ ... C s l s i u s , . ++ ° C
• " t e m p e l e t u r e . + sub t~ac t i~ 9 . tempers tu+e
,-~1 if+ S 2 . 5 4 I t + . J + l l y ) . L[I¢ u lhe l e x i t Cml-~.,~,+,t,.b+ +.~0 n ~ e ~k~ ta , l~ l t a b l ~ , ~,l+u NSS'MIb(;, P*lbl, 2~(i, " U~VIz. ul Wl~l'Jhtb ;SIC FJktc3SUleS. Px4ce S~.3.~, 5~ CJ la lu t l NO. CI3.1U:28(~.
_ _ " ~
• E = - ~. .~ ~ .. . ~ •
, - - m
_ _ - - - , e
- - - . ~ ,~
- - ~ ~,j - - -
_ _ _ ~ . . ~ _
. _ ~ . - -
0
l i t
ol
i+.
~0
- - : = + ,
- - _ _ _ - -_ .
S y m b o l
m
m m km
m 2 Imm 2
ha
9
ko t
ml
I
I
I m 3 m 3 .
° c
i
A p p r o x i m a t e C o n v e f s i o n x I r o n M e t r i c M e a s u r e s
W h o l YOU K n 0 w M u l t i p l y b y To F i n d •
I I io lo18rs Jnclltois
cen t Jl1~ltl}r s i nches naotlmr s Ioo l a lo lo fs yet (11 k i l o n m l m s m o l e s
LENGTH
0 ,04
. 0 . 4
" 1 . 1
0 .6
"AREA
i q u l ' e c e n t l m e t e l s - 0.1.0 square m c h e s I q u a f e m e t e r s 1.2 S<ll+~a ya rds a q u a s k i l o m e t e r s 0 .4 I q l o m* les hecta~'es (10 ,000 m 2) 2 .5 i c t u s
g l e n s
k i l o o r a m s tommes (1000 ko)
m i l l i l i t e r s l i te l rs l i I w s
l i t e r s
c u b i c mete+ l c u b i c m e t a l s
M A S S ( w o i l i t ~
0 .035
2.z ~1.1
VOLUME
ounces pounds shm' l tol~s
0 .03 .
2.1. 1 .04
0 . 2 6
3 5 " 1.3
TEMPERATURE .~ezxt),
f l u i d ounces p0nts guacts
9 a l l m s c u b i c fee t
. cub i c yards. .
CaSs ius - - 0 /S (d~e~ F s l l l l m k e i I l a m p , r a t t a n a d d 32) " Ien~era~ufl
o F OF 32 9(1+6 : tZ
- 4 0 O n 4 o 0o L .12o 16o 90011 , | | | • , i , • L . • . . • . s i ,
. . . . ~ I , i i, , ~ , 1o , ~ - - 4 0 - 2 0 2 0 " 4 0 e n I
° C ST o c
I v n d l o l
in
m
11
ml
i n 2 ~ 2
mi 2
|| OZ pl
ql
y d 3
AC KNOW I,E D6EMENT
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the many agencies and
individuals who have provided continuous support and guidance for the
evaluation efforts of this demonstration project: , . .'., • : ., . ,
County 0fSacrament0 Municipal Court, particularly the Honorable Edward J. Garcia, Presiding Judge 1976-1978; The Honorable Allen : P. Fields, Presiding Judge 1978-1980; The Honorable Roger K. Warren, Presiding Judge 1980; and George Nuckton, Administrative Officer
CountY of sacramento District Attorney's 0ffige, the Honorable John Price, former District Attorney; and the Honorable Herbert Jackson, District Attorney 1979-present.
The Honorable Albert S. Rodda, State Senator, State of California.
California State Department Of Motor Vehicles, particularly Ms Doris Alexis, Director; R0nald S. Coppin, Chief, Researchand Development Section; Raymond C. Peck, Research program Specialist II; and Roger E. Hagen; Ph.D.., Research SpecialiSt III.
G. Van Oldenbeek, Assistant Director, California State Office of Traffic Safety.
The Honorable Rudolf H. Michaels, Chairman, CDUI Liaison and Advisory Committee.
County of Sacramento Health Department, Ronald L Usher, D.P.A., Director, and Laurence R. Valterza, Alcoholism Program Administrat0r.
Narren E. Thornton, Administrator, County of sacramento Law and Justice Agency.
National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration , Office of Driver and pedestrian Programs; Clayton J. Hall, Contract Technical Manager; James L. Nichols, Ph.D., Treatment Specialist; ~ and Robert B. Voas, Ph.D. EvaluationSpecialiSt.
i% .
iii
,%
#
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8
P a g e
D o c u m e n t a t i o n P a g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
i i M e t r i c C o n v e r s i o n F a c t o r s . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgement iii
Table of Cbntents.7....., .... .: ..... ... ....... ..... ;-...-2. ....... ... iv
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; ......... v
L i s t o f T a b l e s . . . . v i i
L i s t o f A b b r e v i a t i o n s a n d D e f i n i t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . x v
A P P E N D I X A - A u t o m a t e d D r i v i n g R e c o r d D a t a C o l l e c t i o n P r o c e d u r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
• APPENDIX B - Survival Data and Test Statistic Summary • Tables for First Offender Treatment
• Group Analysis ............. ; ....................
APPENDIX C- Survival,Data and Test SZatistic Summary
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E -
APPENDIX F -
81
Tables for•Letter MonitOring and Follow-up Interview Analysis ...................... • 164
Education Program Objectives. .184
Quarterly Monit0ring Letter and Content
Analysi s ...... . ........ ..... ............ .... .... :.]87
F~rCURE 1 D i a g r a m o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r R e s e a r c h D e s i g n . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 2 P l o t of C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Ra te s for T o t a l F i r s t O f f e n d e r • T r e a t m e n t Groups and t t ie
: / . : N o n - v 0 i u n t e e r Sample = F i r s t A c C i d e n t . . . . : . . ~ . : . . .
FIGURE 3
FIGURE
['age
10
34
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Ra te s F o r Total• F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Groups and t h e N o n - V o l u n t e e r Sample; F i r s t DUI or R e c k l e s s
D r i v i n g O f f e n s e 35
3 H o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Ra te s f o r T o t a l F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Groups and t h e
i " . . .
• N 0 n - V o l u n t e e r Sample; F ~ r s t ~lovlng V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e 36
FIGURE 5 P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l R a t e s f o r F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Croups , Age L e s s Than "~- Y e a r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
F l GURE
F I GU R E
FIGURE 8
FIGURIi 9
l.l(,Uld. 10
F IGUP, E l l
FIGURE 12
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Rakes For F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Groups , Age L e s s Than 25 Y e a r s : F i r s t , D U I or R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 3 8
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l R a t e s For F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t g r o u p s , Age Less Than 25 Yea r s : F i r s t MoVing V i o l a t i o n Or Any A / R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Plot of Cumulative Survival Rates For First offender Treatment Groups, Age 25 Years or Oideri iEirst Accident ... ...... : ..... ...... ,..... 40
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Ra te s f o r F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s , A g e 25 Years o r O l d e r : F i r s t DUI or R e c k l e s s l ) r i v i n g Offense• 41 , . . . . . : , . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . .
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Ra te s f o r F i r s t Of fend .e r T r e a t m e n t g r o u p s , Age 25 Years o r O l d e r : F i r s t i4oving V i o l a t i o n or
, 42 Any A/k O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P l o t Of C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Ra te f o r F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Groups , S o c i a l D r i n k e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l R a t e s For F i r s t O f f e n d e r • T r e a t m e n t Groups , •Soc ia l D r i n k e r s : F i r s t DUI o r ~ 6 c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . 44
v i " .
F IGUP, E 13
1: I tilJRI:, 14
F I ( ; UR E 15
!: IGURE 16
F I.GURE 17
FIGURE 18
FIGURE 19=
F I(;URE 20.
F I(;URE 21
FIGURE ~?
FIGURE 23
FIGURI; 24.
FIGURE 25
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l . R a t e s f o r F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s , S o c i a l D r i n k e r s : F i r s t Hovi.n~ V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . -15
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e . q u r v i v a l : R a t e s F o r F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t ( ; r o u p s , .~.tidran!,e t ' i r ob l em D r i n k e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
P l o t o f . C u m u l a t i v e " i u r v i { , a l . , R a t e s F o r . F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s , P. i d r a n g e P r o b l e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 2 . . . . . . . . : . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . 47
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i V e S u r v i w i l R a t e s F o r F i r s t • O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s , M i d r a n g e P r o b l e m
D r i n k e r s : F i r s t _ .~,loving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/P, Ot~fens,e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 48
P l o t of Cumulative S u r v i V a l R a t e s [ : o r F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s , S e v e r e P r o b l e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . 49
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l R a t e s F o r F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t . G r o u p s , S e v e r e P r o b I e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t I)UI: o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
PlOt o f , C u m U l a t i v e S u r v i v a i R a t e s For F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t ( ; r o u p s , S e v e r e P r o b l e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t M o v i n g V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . : . . . . i . . , . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
P l o t o f C u m u l a t ire S u r v i v a l R a t e s . F o r b l o n i t o r i n g l , e t t e r and No M o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r C, r 0 u p s : F i r s t : \ c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
P l o t o f Cumulative S u r v i v a l P, a t e s F o r M o n i t O r i n g L e t t e r and No H o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r G r o u p s : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . 57
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Rates For M o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r and NO M o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r G r o u p s : F i r s t . Movinii, V i o l a t i o n o r A n y A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
P l o t • o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l R a t e s F o r F o l l o w - I I l ~ and No F o l l m q - U p G r o u p s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . 59
P l o t " 0 . f . C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l P, a t e s F o r F o 1 1 0 w - u p : and No Follow-Up G r o u p s :- F ] . r s t D U I o r R e c k l e s s
D r i v i n g O f f e n s e ' . . . . . . . . 60
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Rat~,s F o r Fo i l ow- -Up a n d N o F o l i o w - U p G r o u p s : F i r s t ~.lovin(: V i o l n t i o n o r A n y A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
vii
/
't
T E ,'-: T
LIST Ol: TABI,ES . , . •
/:i ' "
T A B L I ! 1 Exam ple S u r v i v a l l ) a t a T a b l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , : . . . . . . . .
T-~BLI- 2 . a Summary o f C u m u l a t i v e Survi-~31 R a t e s a,* S e l e c t e d T i m e I n t e r ~ a l s ~ F i r s t O f f , r u d e r
' T r e a t m e n t . ' ( ; r o n p . . . . . . l ' " ; " : i " " " ' " " . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 2 . b Summary o f A c c i d e n t and V i o l a t i o n R a t e s a t S e l e c t e d Time I n t e r v a l s : F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a ' t m e n t Group
TABLE 2. c Relative Order of C u m u l a t i v e Survival Rates a t S e l e c t e d Time Intervals: Fi r .~ t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
TAB I,E .3.a
3:b
summary of C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l , R a t e s a t S e l e c t e d T i m e I n t e r v a l s : T o t a l C o n t r o l Group A s s i g n m e n t s v e r s u s N o n - V o l u n t e e r s . . . . . . . . . .
Su.mmary o f A c c i d e n t and V i o l a t i o n R a t e s a t S e l e c t e d Time I n t e r v a l s : T o t a l C o n t r o l G r o u p A s s i g n m e n t s v e r s u s N o n - V o l u n t e e r s . . . . . . . . . .
T.XBLE
'!'ABLE
TAI]Lt:
3.c Relative Order oF Cumulative Survival Rates atSelected Time Intervals" Total Control Croup As s i !Inment .~ ve r su s Non-Vo lunt eer s ....... :..
4.a Sununary of Cumulative Sm'vival Rates at Seiected Time Intervals: Letter Honitoring vs. No Letter ~k)nitorin£ and Follow-Up vs.
4 b Summary of A,,:cident and Violation Rates at Selected Time IntervaIs: I,etter Honitorjng vs, No Letter },ilonitor]ng and Follow-Up vs.
No F o l l o w - U p . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• • ) ....
1ABI,E 4 . c R e l a t i v e O r d e r o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l R a t e s a t S e l e c t e d "[ilr, e i n t e r v a l s : L e t t e r ! ! 0 n i t 6 r i n g v s . No l , e t t e r } ! o n i t o r i n g and F o l l o w - U p v s . ?!o Fol low-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\PPEND 1X B
iAI~I.E ,,D] .
"fABLI! B1 .b
TABLE B1 .c
Control Group Survival Data: First Accident . . . . .
tlome S t u d y C, r o u p S u r v i v a l D a t a : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . .
I n - C l a s s (~roup Survival D a t a : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . .
Page
16
25
28
29
32
32
32
53
$3
54
85
84
85
viii
• " ' . ' " " " i
TABLE B l . d S u r v i v a : l , . D a t a l o t , t h e S a m p l e o f N o n - . ! : : i ~ • V o l u n t e e r s , : F i r s t A C c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . : . 86
TABLE
• TABLE
.. •
TABLE
TABLE
B 1. e C o m p a r i s o n . o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t . ( ; r b u p s U s i n g . t : h e l ,ee. .Dest , S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . 87
B l . . f C o m p a r i s o n o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G I : o u p , , a n d t h e . N o n , V o l u n t e e r : SampFe U s i n g t h e LEO-
Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t A c d l d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B 2 . a C o n t r o l G ro u p S u r v i v a l D a t a : F i r s t .DtJi o r , R e c k l e s s D r i V i n g O f f e n S e . . . , . . , , . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
B2 .b l l o m e S t u d y G r o u p S t i r v i V a i D a t a : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..: . . . . . . . . . 91
TABLE B 2 . c
TABLE B2 .d
I n , C l a s s Group S u r v i v a l D a t a F i r s t DU[ o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g o f f e n s e • 92
S u r v i v a l D a t a f o r t h e S a m p l e . ~ o f N 0 n - V o l u n t e e r s : First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense 93
TABLE B2. e C o m p a r i s o n o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t . G r o u p s U s i n g t h e l , e e - D e s u S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
TABLE B2 .g C o m p a r i s o n o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p and t h e N o n - V o l u n t e e r S a m p l e U s i n g t h e Lee- '
• , Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 95
TABLE B 3 . a C o n t r o l G r o u p S u r v t v a i D a t a : F i r s t b i o v i n g V i o l a t i o n o r Any," A/R O f f e n s e 9 7
TABLE B3. b tlome S t u d y Cro u p S u r v i v a l D a t a : F i r s t b lov ing V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . 98
TABLE B3 . c
TABLE B 3 . d
TAB LI! B3. e
T A B L E B 3 . f
TABLE B4. a
I n - C l a s s G ro u p S u r v i v a l D a t a : F i r s t Mo v in g V i o l a t i o n o r A n y A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
S u r v i v a l D a t a F o r t h e S a m p l e o f N o n - V o l u n t e e r s : F i r s t b iov ing V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . 1 0 0
C o m p a r i s o n o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s U s i n g t l i e L e e - D e s u S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t ~4oving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . 101
Comparison of Firstl Offender Treatment Groups and theNon-VolunteerSample Using the l,ee- Desu Statistic: First Hoving Violation or Any.A/R:Offense ....'...;..,... ...... • ......... ....... 102
Control • Group Survival Data for Age Less Than 25Years: FirSt Accident .... • ..... 104
i x
TABLE B 4 . b
TABLE B4. c
TAB I,E B4. d
TABLE BS.a
T~BLE B5 .b
TABLE BS.c
TABLE B5. d
TABLE 136. a
TABLE B6. b
TABLE B6.c
TABLE B6.d
TABI,E B7. a ....
TABLE B7.,b {
T.hBLE B7.c
Home S t u d y Group S u r v i v a l - D a t a f o r Age ! ; : : Less Than 25 Years~: . F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
I n - C l a s s (;rour~ S u r v i v a l Da,ta f o r Age Less , : ; - . Than 2'5 Y e a r s : F i r s t Accdden t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
C o m p a r i s o n of, F i , r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Groups f o r Age Less Than 25 Yea r s Using t h e L e e - D e s u S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Control Group Survival Data For Age Less Than 25 Years: First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense . . . . 108
llome S t u d y Group S u r v i v a l Data !:or Age Less Than 25 Y e a r s : F i r s t DUI o r Reck: less D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
I n - C l a s s Group S u r v i v a l Data For Age Less Th/in 25 Y e a r s : F i r s t DiJI o r R e c k l e s s l ) r i v i n g O f l e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
C o m p a r i s o n O f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Groups For Age Less "rhan 25 Y e a r s , u s i n g t h e Lee -Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t D U I o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e 111
C o n t r o l Group S u r v i v a l Data For Age Less Than 25 Y e a r s : F i r s t Hoving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e 112
Home Study Group Survival Data for Age Less Than 25 Years: First Moving Violation or
Any A/R Offense 113
In-Class GroUp Survival Data For Age Less Than 25 Years: First Hoving Violation or Any A/R Offense ....... . ..... ..... • . 114
Comparison of First Offender Treatment Groups for Age Les s Than 25 Years, Usin~ the Lee-Desu Statistic: First Moving Violation or Any A/R
C o n t r o l G r o u p ~ ;u rv iva l D a t a For Age 25 Yea r s o r O l d e r : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
florae Study Group Survival Data For Age 25 Years or Older: Fi:rst Accident .................. 117
In-Class Group Survival Data For ~,ge 25 Years or Older: First Accident . .... . ............ 118
- .[
X
TABLE B71d
TABLE B8.a
'FABLE B8 .b
,]'ABLE B8.c
TABLE B8. d
"FABLE B9.a
TABLE B9.b
TABLE B9.c
TABLE B9.d
TABLE B10. a
TABLE B10 .b
FABLE B10.c
TABLE B10.d
TABLE B i l : a
Comparison o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r "Freatment'~ UCd~ips For Age- ,25 .Years :or O l d e r , u s ing the Lee-l)esu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Acc iden t ' ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Cont ro l Group S u r v i v a l Data For Agei25 Y'ears or Older : F i r s t I)UI or R e c k i e s s - D r i v i n g Offense• "" . . . . . . - ' . . . . . . • - .: - • -••120
florae Stud:y Group SUrVival D a t a F o r Age 2 5 Years or Older." F i r s t DUI or R e c k l e s s Dr iv ing O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
I n : C l a s s Croup, S u r v i v a l Data For Age 25 Years o r O l d e r : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e
COmparison Of F i r s t O f f e n d e r Tr~eatment Croups For Age 25 Y e a r s Or O l d e r , Using ti le Lee-Desu Statistic: First DUI or Reckless Driving O f f e nse 123
Cont ro l Group SurViva i Da ta For Age 25 Years or O l d e r : F i r s t Moving. Vio la t : ion or Any A/R Of fense • . .22 . . . . ; ' ' , . . . . . . . . - . ~ i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1•24
7 , . •
ltome S t u d y i;roup S u r v i v a l Data For Age 25 Years or O lde r : F i r s t ~1oving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e 125
I n - C l a s s Group S u r v i v a l Data f o r Age 2 5 Years or O lde r : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n or
Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . 126
Comparison Of F i r s t O f f e n d e r T rea tmen t Groups f o r Age 25 Years o r O lde r , u s i n g the Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t btoving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R Of fense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Cont ro l Group • S u r v i V a l Data For S o c i a l D r i n k e r s : F i r s t Acc iden t
ttome Study Group S u r v i v a l Data For S o c i a l D r i n k e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
I n = c l a s s Group S u r v i v a l Data F o r S o c i a l DrTnkersi F i r s t ,Acc iden t . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Comparison o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T rea tmen t Groups For S o c i a l D r i n k e r s , . Us:ins t he Lee- Desu s t a t i s t i c : F i r s t A c c i d e n t 131
Cont ro l Group S u r v i v a l Data For S o c i a l Drinkers~ F i ' r s t DllI or Reck l e s s Dr iv ing O f f e nse 132
TABLE. B11 .b
TABLE Bll.c
TABLE Bll.d
TABLE B12 .a
TABLE B12.b
TABLE B12 .c
TABLE B12.d
TABLE BlS.a
TABLE Bl3.b
TABLE B13 ,c
TABLE Bl3.d
TABLE B14 . a
TABLE Bl4.b
TABLE Bl4.c
• , , . ,
, % :
ltome S t u d y Group S u r v i v a l Data f o r Soc i / a l (- D r i n k e r s : F i r s t DUI o r : R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
In-Class GroupSurvival Data for Social DrinkerS: First DUI or Reckless Driving o f f e n s e 134
Comparison of First Offender Treatment Groups for~Social Drinkers, Using the Lee-Desu Statistic: First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense 135
Control Group survival Data For Social Drinkers: First Moving Violation or Any A/R Offense ........ 136
Home Study Group Survival Data For Social Drinkers: First Moving Violation or Any A/R Offense ...................................... 137
In-Class Group Survival Data For Social Drinkers: FirstMoving Violation or Any A/R Offense ...................................... 138
Comparison of First Offender Treatment Groups For Social Drinkers, Using the Lee-Desu Statistic: First Moving Violation or Any A/R Offense 139
Control Group Survival Data For Midran~e Problem Drinkers: First Accident 140
ltome S t u d y Grou p S u r v i v a l Data For M i d r a n g e P r o b l e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
i n - C l a s s Group S u r v i v a l Data For M i d r a n g e P r o b l e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Comparison of First Offender Treatment Groups For Midrange Problem Drinkers, Using the Lee- Desu Statistic: First Accident .................. 143
Control Group Survival Data for ~lidrange P r 0 b l e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Home S t u d y S u r v i v a l Data f o r M i d r a n g e P r o b l e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 145
In-Class Group Survival Data For ~lidrange Problem Drinkers: First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense ...... ..; ..... ; .................... 146
J ~J
xil
t
2,'
i
W'
I'ABI,E Bl4 .d
TABI,E B15.a
TABI~E B15.b
TABLE B l 5 . c
TABLE B1S.d
'FABLE B16.a
TABLE B l 6 , b
TABLE B16.c
TABLE B16.d
TABLE B17 .-a
TABLE B17.b
TABLE B17.c
T.,% 8LE B17.d
TAI~ LE B lg . a
Compar ison o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t d ro f lps f o r ~I idrange Problem l ) r i n k e r s , Using t h e Lee- Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t DUI or R e c k l e s s [ ) r i v ing O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . 147
C o n t r o l Group S u r v i v a l Da ta For Mid range Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n
o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . 148
Home S tudy Group S u r v i v a l Data For Mid range Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e , 149
I n - C l a s s Group S u r v i v a l Data For Midrange Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t Hoving V i o l a t i o n or Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i50
Compar ison o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s For Midrange Problem D r i n k e r s , Us ing t h e Lee- Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
C o n t r o l Group S u r v i v a l D a t a For S e v e r e Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
tlome S t u d y Group S u r v i v a l Data For S e v e r e P r o b l e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t 153
I n - C l a s s (;roup S u r v i v a l Data For S e v e r e Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 4
Compar ison o f F : i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s For Seve re ProbJern D r i n k e r s , P s i n g t h e L e e . Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t A c c i d e n t 155
C o n t r o l (;roup. S u r v i v a l Data F o r . S e v e r e Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t Dill o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e 156
t{ome Study Group Survival Data For S e v e r e Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
in-Class Group Survival Data for Severe Problem Drinkers: First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense ................................. 158
Compa#ison of First Offender Treatment Groups For Severe Problem Drinkers, using the Lee-Desu Statistic: First DUI or~ Reckless Driving Offense ............. . .. .... .............. ~ ...... 159
C o n t r o l Group S u r v i v a l • Data F o r •Severe Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n or An)- A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
xlli
,'r" " - • ,ABLL ~I18 b
TABLE B18.c
TABLE B18.4
APPENDIX C
TABLE C l . a
TAIH,E ,C l .b
TABI,E C l . c
TABI,E C2 .a
TABLE C2 .b
TABLE (.2 c
T:\B I,E C3. a
TABLE C3. b
TABLE C3. c
T,\IiLI- C:I .a
llo.me S t u d y Group S u r v i v a l Data For Selvere P r ob l em D r i n k e r s : l : i r s t Hoving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e : . ; . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
I n - C l a s s ( ;roup S u r v i v a l D a t a For S e v e r e P rob l em D r i n k e r s - F i r s t Hov ing V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Compar i son Of F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Croups For S e v e r e Prob iem D r i n k e r s , Us ing t h e Lee -Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t DUI o r Any A/R O f f e n s e 163
S u r v i v a l Data For C l i e n t s Receiving Q u a r t e r l y H o n i t o r i n g l , e t t e r s " F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . i 66
S u r v i v a l Data For C l i e n t s Not R e c e i v i n g Q u a r t e r l y H o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r s : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . 167
C o m p a r i s o n o f H o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r and No ~ ' l o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r G r o u p s , Using t h e Lee - Desu S t a t i s t i c " F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
S u r v i v a l Data For C l i e n t s R e c e i v i n g Q u a r t e r l y H o n i t o r i n g I , e t t e r s : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e 169
S u r v i v a l Da t a For C l i e n t s Not R e c e i v i n g Q u a r t e r t y ~ I o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r s : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Compar iSon o f 5 t o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r and No ~'Ionitorin~,, L e t t e r ( ; r o u p s , Us ing t h e l , e e - Desu s t a t i s t i c . F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g Of f ' ense " 171
S u r v i v a l Data For C l i e n t s R e c e i v i n g Q u a r t e r l y H o n i t o r i n g l , e t t e r s : F i r s t Hoving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 2
S u r v i v a l Data For C l i e n t s Not R e c e i v i n g Q u a r t e r l y H o n i t o r : i n g L e t t e r s : F i r s t , H o v i n g V i o l a t i o n ? o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
C o m p a r i s o n o f H o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r and No H o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r Groups Us ing t h e Lee - Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Hoving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,74
S u r v i v a l Data F0'. C l i e n t s A s s i g n e d To F o l l o w - U p I n t e r v i e w s " F i r s t A c c i d e n t ' 175 •
xiv
TABLE C 4 . b
TABLE C4 . c
TABLE C5..a
TABLE C5. b
TABLE C5.c
TABLE C6.a
TABLE C6.b
]'ABLE C6.c
S u r v i v a l D a t a F o r C l i e n t s No t A s s i g n e d t o F o l l o w - U p I n t e r v i e w s : F . i r s t . A c c i d e n t ~ .~ . . . . . . . . . . 176
C o m p a r i s o n Of F o l l o w - U p and No F o l l o w - U p G r o u p s , U s i n g t h e l , e e - D e s u S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t A c c i d e n t . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 177
Survival Data For Clients Assigned to Follow-Up Interviews: First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense .... ....... ...; ................... 178
S u r v i v a l D a t a F o r C l i e n t s Not A s s i g n e d : t o F o l l o w - U p I n t e r v i e w s : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e " " • 179
Comparison of Follow-Up and No Follow-Up Groups, Using the Lee-Desu Statistic: First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense .................. 180
Survival Data For Clients Assigned to Follow-Up Interviews: First ~Ioving Violation or Any A/R Offense . ......... ! 81
Survival Data For Clients Not Assigned to Follow-Up Interviews: First ~4oving Violation or Any A/R Offense ............................... 182
C o m p a r i s o n o f F o l l o w - U p and No F o l l o w ' - U p ' .. Groups, Using the Lee-Desu Statistic: First ~!oving Violation or Any A/R Offense 183
x-V
Abbreviation or Term
- - . .
LIST OF. ABBREVIAT-I.ONS! AND DEFINITIONS • ". !-. i
ExPlanation
DUI Driving Under the Influence of~Alc0hoi or Alcohol andDrugs
CDUI.Project or CDUI
BAC
ASAP
NHTSA
ComprehensiveDriving Under the Influence of Alcohol Offender Treatment
,Demonstration Project . .
Blood AlcoholContent
Alcohol Safety Action-Project
National Highway Traffic Safety. Administration
A/R Alcohol Related
DMV~
Follow-u p Interviews
California Department of Motor Vehicles
A series of three in-depth personal interviews administered prior to entering treatment and again at I0 months and 20 months from the initial interview, used•to assess life changes
-resulting from the. treatment inter- ventions.
I,AI
Letter Monitoring
Exposure Time
Life Activities Inventory , the follow-up interview protocol and questionnaires.
An experimental procedure in which clients were mailed letters on quarterly basis toperiodically remind them that they were on informal probation for twoyears..
The~length of time between the date of random assignment to one of the treat- ment conditions and the date of the latest DMV records search. This is the period of time during which clients were exposed tO the risk of rearrest or accident involvement anddur{ng which such outcome measures could be officially recorded.
xvi
Abbreviation or T e r m
Survival Rate
Statistically Significant Difference
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND D E F I N I T I O N S • ( C o n t . ! d . ) : , :,. , ,
Explanation . " . ... . .
The proportion of Clients for-whom outcome events (violations, accidents, etc¢) were not detected dUring a. specific exposure time period. The converse of rearrest and accident rates.
A difference between treatment groups on an outcome measure (e.g.; DUI " survival rate) that was unlikely to have resulted from pure chance. In the present study any differencethat could be obtained by chance, only ten or fewer times out of 100 was con- sidered statistically significant.
First offender DUI
M u i t i p l e O f f e n d e r DUI
Reckless Driving Offense
A person With only one officially recorded.conviction for DrivingUnder the influence of Alcohol.
A person with two.or more officially recorded convictions for Driving Under the Influence of-Alc6hol.
The most common charge reduction from DUI. It was standard Practice for Sacramento Municipal Court to reduce low BAC cases (.12 or less) to reckless driving.
SB 38
PCPS
California State Senate Bill No. 38, the legislation,Which permitted multiple DUI offenders to participate in alcohol treatment programs in lieu of license suspension.
Post-Conviction Presentence, a special court referral procedure used by Sacramento Municipal Court for multiple DUI offenders with only one prior DUI conviction. Theprocedure involved accepting a guilty plea'to DUI .but postponing sentencing for 13 months. If the client successfully completed treatment during this period the -charge was reduced to reckless driving. 'Inadequate participation resulted in
' " .... sentencing on the original charge of " DUI.
. .
A b b r e v i a t i o n
o r T e r m
Control Group
Home Study
LIST OF ABBREVIATIO~NS AND DEFINITIONS ( C o n t ' d . ) " " :
Explanation
DUI offender clients randomly assigned to a no-treatment condition, i.e., they were not required to attend education or counselingprograms.
A self-study, self-paced alcohol traffic safety education program.
In-Class Education An Alcohol Traffic Safety School whichconsisted of four, 2% hour classsessions ~
Non-Volunteer Sample
Social Drinker
Severe Problem Drinker
Persons convicted of their first DUI offense or who had their original DUI charge reduced to reckless driving but who Chose to pay a higher fine in lieu of par- ticipation in the CDUI Project,s education programs. .
A DUI offender who appeared tb have only a modest tolerance to. alcohol, who did not regularly drive at illegal blood alcohol levels, and who was unlikely to be rearrested for DUI ~ A Subjective diagnostic classification.
.' . .'
A DUI offender who showed symptoms • of physical or strong psychological addiction to alcohol, heavy frequent drinking, high level of tolerance-- capable Of functioning at hig h BAC levels,and who evidenced significant life problemsresulting from alcohol abuse. A subjective diagnostic classification.
MidiRange Problem Drinker
xvlii
A DUI offender who could not be classified as a social drinker but whose drinking problem s were not as advanced as a severe problem drinker. .Rersons in this broad category
evidenced a variety of excessive • drinking patterns, moderate but not ~extreme!y high tolerance to alcohol, andwere often developing life problems related to their excessive drinking haSits. A subjective diagnostic classification./
INTRODUCTION
D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t O b j e c t i y e s . i . ,
The Comprehens ive D # i v . i n g U n d e r t h e I n f l u e n c e Of A l c o h o i O f f e n d e r
• T r e a t m e n t D e m o n s t r a t i o n . ~ P r o j e c t , a b b r e v i a t e d CDU,I P r o j e c t , was i m p l e m e n t e d
t o d e t e r m i n e t h e . e f f e e t i v e n e s s : : o f a l c o h o l e d u c a t i o n a n d e d u c a t i O n a l . • .
Counseling programs as traffic safety countermeasures, comparativeiy
short-term alcohol traffic s'afety education programs were provided to •
persons having only one recorded conviction for driving~under the •
influence ofalcohol (DUI), while more comprehensive, longer-t~erm educa-
tional counseling programs were provided , with or without chemotherapy
treatment, to persons having two or more convictions ~ for driving under
the influence.
Through the assignment of a proportion of DUI offenders to a no
treatment control condition, each program's • potential forreducing
accidents and driving violations, as well as inducing positive life
changes could be assessed relative ~o those offenders who were not
. provided treatment. '
Background
The Highway Safety:Act of 1967 • required the Secretary of Transportation
to conduct an investigationinto the role of alcohol in highway traffic
• safety. The resulting report presented•to the Congress in 1968" detailed
the extent• O f death and property damage due t0 drunk driving,•and high-
lighted the overrepresentation of problem drinkers in fatal alcohol
related accidents.
An assessment of existing procedures to control drunk driving indi-
cated that in most Communities there was little awareness Of the magnitude
of the drunkdriving Problem among th e general public, and even among
professional groups, such as police, judges, educators and therapists
Concerned with the traditional treatment•of alcoholics. •Consequently,
few communities provided police • officers with specialized training in
the detection and apprehension of drunk drivers, there were•few systematic
Court referral mechanisms to r~fer potential problem drinkers tO appro-
priate treatment programs , an d there were few• educationand counseling,
~U.S.• Department of Transportation•: Alcohol and Highway Safety/, a Report to the Congress from the Secretary of Transportation , August 1968. •
programs app rop r i a t e for non-problem (soc ia l ) d r inke r s or persons with
only moderate d r ink ing problems. " " ~ " "
In response to these f i n d i n g s . t h e . National Highway Traff ic . Sa fe ty
Admin i s t r a t ion (NHTSA) i n i t i a t e d a major a lcohol t r a f f i c s a f e t y p r o g r a m
in 1 9 7 0 . TheNHTSA program involved the establ, ishment. .(between. January
1971 and September i 9 7 2 ) o f 35.Alcohol Safety Action P r o j e c t s (ASAP's)
throughout the C o u n t r y . The under ly ing concept of a l l the ASAP's was
to develop a drinking.driver control system,an integrate d set of ,
countermeasures which would identify Problem drinkers on the road,
make judicial decisions regardingthe most appropriate sanctions and
rehabilitative procedures in a timely and efficient manner, and put
the rehabilitative procedures into effect.
The primary. ASAP objectives were to:
Demonstrate the feasibility of a systems.approach for dealing
with the drinking-driving problem, and to.demonstrate the
approach can save l i v e s . .
Urge each s t a t e to improve i t s sa fe ty programs in a l coho l
t r a f f i c s a f e ty .
. Evaluate i n d i v i d u a l countermeasures as adequa te ly as p o s s i b l e
given the s imultaneous a p p l i c a t i o n of an e n t i r e System Of
c o u n t e r m e a s u r e s a t each s i t e .
In gene ra l , the ASAP's were success fu l in a t t a i n i n g t h e i r most
immediate, o b j e c t i v e s . There w a s a s u b s t a n t i a l i nc rease in awareness
of the a lcohol t r a f f i c s a f e t y problem, new alcohol s a f e t y laws were
enacted , and countermeasure procedures were r e f i n e d . The ASAP's
demonstra ted t h a t a - coo rd ina t ed mult iagency approach to the d r i n k i n g -
d r i v e r p roble m was not only f e a s i b l e but could save l i v e s . Of the
35 ASAP s i t e s , 12 showed s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n s ~in
n i g h t t i m e f a t a ! c rashes . F o r t h e 12 ASAP s i t e s showing S i g n i f i c a n t
r e d u c t i o n s , none of the corresponding comparison communities showed
s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n s i n n igh t t ime f a t a l c rashes .
I t was found, however, t ha t t he ASAP's o r i g i n a l t h r e e - y e a r
o p e r a t i o n a l pe r iods did not provide s u f f i c i e n t time to adequa te ly
assess the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the i n d i v i d u a l ' c o u n t e r m e a s u r e s .
- 2 -
The ASAP sites were allowed to compete for a two-year extension of
t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s . : Ten: o f ~ t h e A S A p , s i t e s : were awarded~ the o p e r a t ~ o n a l
e x t e n s i o n c o n t r a c t s f o r F ¥ 75 /76 t:hrough FY 7 6 / 7 7 . At t h e s e - e x t e n d e d
s i t e s the e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e r e h a b f l i t a t i o n component was s t r e n g t h e n e d :
by r e q u i r i n g random a s s i g n m e n t - o f DUI o f f e n d e r s to t r e a t m e n t and
c o n t r o l (or minimum exposu re ) c o n d i t i o n s and by r e q u i r i n g f o l l o w - u p . r ' ' , . " " : " . , " " . •
i n t e r v i e w s .to c o l l e c t l i f e c h a n g e outcome c r i t e r i a to supplement
d r i v i n g v i o l a t i o n and a c c i d e n t d a t a .
The i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d from the e v a l u a t i o n o f t he ASAP r e h a b i l i -
t a t i o n e f f o r t s i n d i c a t e d the f o l l o w i n g :
N o n - p r o b l e m ( s o c i a l ) d r i n k e r s who were r e f e r r e d to e d u c a t i o n
programs had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower r e a r r e s t r a t e than s o c i a l
d r i n k e r s who were no t r e f e r r e d to e d u c a t i o n p rograms .
One ASAP s i t e found t h a t a home s t u d y c o u r s e was as e f f e c t i v e
as t h e i r i n - c l a s s program i n r e d u c i n g r e a r r e s t r a t e s .
There was, however , no e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t he ASAP e d u c a t i o n
e f f o r t s r educed Crash i nvo lvemen t among s o c i a l d r i n k e r s .
• For p e r s o n s wi th modera te to s e v e r e d r i n k i n g p r o b l e m s , t h e r e
was l i t t l e e v i d e n c e t h a t r e f e r r a l t o e d u c a t i o n or o t h e r f o r m s
o f r e h a b i l i t a t i o n r e s u l t e d in lower r e a r r e s t o r a c c i d e n t r a t e s
when compared wi th problem d r i n k e r s no t r e f e r r e d to such p rograms .
There was some evidence, although inconclusive, to suggest
that chemotherapy (Disulfiram)treatment may reduce subsequent
rearrest and accident rates.
There was evidence that persons with certain characteristics
(particularly those characteristics related to drinking problem
severity and socio-economic status) benefit more from some
types of education and rehabilitation approaches than others.
The ASAP rehabilitation efforts provided much additional information
about the design, implementation, and evaluation of ~,lcohol safety
schools and other forms of rehabiiitation for drinking drivers. The
information obtained from the ASAP experience, however, generated as
many questions as it didanswers. Consequently, as the last of the
-3 -
• original ASAP sites were concluding operations the NHTSA was~detailing
the requirements of a new demonstration project that would, provide
definitive answers to a number of specifi~c..alcohol treatmen.t questions.
The resulting contract for the Comprehensive DUI Offender Treatment
Demonstration Project .was awarded to the Sacramento County, California ,
Health Department in october of i976. The project was implemented in the
following t~me frame:
• ~ Development Period - October 1976 through August i977, detailed
contract negotiations, recruitment of ~ey personnel, identifica-
tion of data•sources and design of data collection forms and
procedures.
Pilot Period September 1977 through December 1977, start
random assignmentinto first offende# DUI research design and
conduct education programs, refinement of data collection forms
and procedures, refinement of the education andcounseling
programs, start of majo~ comPuter data base analysis and pro-
gramming effort. .
• Operational Period - January 1978 through December 1979, start
random assignment of multiple DUI offenders and conduct counsel-
ing and .zhemotherapy programs, continue assignment of first
offender DUI's, monitor participation, and collect data.
• Follow-up and AnalYsis Period - January 1980 through December.
1981, finish treatment of clientsassigned during operational
period, continue to collect evaluati0n data,~analyze data and
write interim reports.
Project Closeout Period - January 1982 through June. 1982, produce
final reports and recommendations.
The CDUI Project!s research designs were. developed.to provide
answers to the •questions prompted by theearlier ASAP findings..For
example, one ASAP found thatahome study education program was as
effective as an in-class education program for DUI offenders who did
-4-
not evidence, problem drinking symptoms. A.new self-paced, programmed
learning, home study curriculum, was developed for-:.the CDUI Project in
order to verify this finding, and define in more detail the character-
istics of the DUI offenders who may benefit most.from a.less costly
Complete survival data tables as.well as summaries of all
significance tests conducted for the treatment group analyses are
presented in Appendix B. It shouldbe recalled that the significance
.testsinvolved the c0mparison, of entire survival distributions using
all available data and not just the three survival rates selected
for presentation.in Tab!e2.a. Even a cursory review ofthe material
in Appendix B wil.l give the reader a better impression Of treatment
group survival experience including effective sample size, exposure
time,~ and the. actual number, of accidents and violations.
As an aid to. reviewing Appendix B and interpreting the results
of the statistical-analyses,.the total sample sizes on which the
significance tests were based are summarized below:
.Total Assigned:
Control .Home Study. In-Class Education
Total
Age SubgrouPs:
Total < 2 5 years Total > 25 years
Diagnostic Subgroups:
TotaI Socia i Drinkers Total. Mid-RangeProblem Drinkers Total Severe Problem Drinkers
1,270 1,309 1,286
3,865
i ,434 2,431
781 2,447
637
Non-VolunteerSampie: 3,240
Although the results.of the.statisticalanalyses provided no
evidence that the survival rate differences in Table 2.a were
anything more than chance flucuations in the data, one Should not be
deterred from closely inspecting the survival data for consistent
-26-
p a t t e r n s : a n d t e n d e n c i e s . Tile f i r s t s t e p in t i l l s p r o c e s s was to • , : :. , . . - . .
d e t e r m i n e how the d a t a behave. For example , were t t i e . r . e . !og ica l
and a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s in s u r v i v a l r a t e s between the age
and d i a g n o s t i c subgroups?
B y S u b t r a c t i n g t h e s e l e c t e d s u r v i v a l r a t e s from' 1.0 tile d a t a
~ere t r a n s f o r m e d to the a c c i d e n t and v i o l a t i o n r a t e s shown in T a b l e
2 .b . Comparing the two age subgroups , i t i s C l ea r t h a t tile younger
o f f e n d e r s between 18 and 24 y e a r s o f age had c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r
a c c i d e n t and DUI o f f e n s e r a t e s than o f f e n d e r s who were 25 y e a r s o f
age or o l d e r This d i f f e r e n c e was even more nronounced f o r t o t a l
~oving v i o l a t i o n s where the younger o f f e n d e r s ' 4 8 0 day r a t e s ranged
from .2766 to .2880, compared wi th .1655 to .1960 f o r t h e o l d e r
o f f e n d e r s . S ince t he s i n g l e most common moving v i o l a t i o n ( o t h e r t han
9UI) w a s speeding, the higher rate of moving Violations among tile
younger, offenders was expected by the authors.
Of the three outcome measures used in this study, DUr-reekless
driving offenses had the greatest degree of alcohol involvement and,
therefore, should show the }ii~hest correlation with drinking problem
severity. Tile data in 'Fable 2.b do in fact show s~nall but consistent
differences between diagnostic subgroups in the anticipated direction.
The 480 day DUI offense rate:; for social drinkers ranged from .054~ to"
.065g., midrange proble m drinkers from .0664 to .0930, and severe
problem drinkers from .0998 to .i165. '
Thus in general, tim data used in this interim report appear to
behave ~!ogically and have enough sensitivity to distinguish major .
s u b g r o u p s o f tile f i r s t o f f e n d e r r e s e a r c h . s a m p l e . While t h i s was
r e a s s u r i n g , o , , r p r imary i n t e r e s t c o n c e r n e d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t : i o n o f
consi, s t en t , between g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s in s u r v i v a l e x p e r i e n c e .
In Table 2 .c t he c u m u l a t i v e s u r v i v a l r a t e s from "Fable 2~a were
rank o r d e r e d between the t h r e e t r e a t m e n t g roups . The groups were
o r d e r e d a t each t ime i n t e r v a l , I. f o r t h e group wi th the lowes t s u r v i v a l
r a t e ( h i g h e s t a c c i d e n t / v i o l a t i o n r a t e ) , and 3 f o r the group wi th t h e
h i g h e s t s u r v i v a l r a t e . The f i g u r e numbers i n 'Fable 2 . c r e f e r to tile
c o r r e s p o n d i n g graphs of t h e . e n t i r e s u r v i v a l r a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s ,.4hich.
a re p r e s e n t e d in the f o l l o w i n g t e x t . All f o u r d e c i m a l t ) l aces in t h e
c u m u i a t i v e s u r v i v a l r a t e s were used in bo th t h e . o r d e r i n g and the
-27-
' . . .
T a b l e 2 . b
Summary o f A c c i d e n t and V i o l a t i o n R a t e s a t S e l e c t e d • "rime I n t e r v a l s : ' F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t g r o u p s
• 1 . , .3 .2¢)09 2186 . 1 5 6 8 . 1 9 4 4 . 2 1 l l . 1 6 l l .2!121 . 2 3 3 9
. 1 5 4 2 . 2 0 8 9 . 2 2 a 5
. 1 7 2 2 .1874 .2353
. 1 6 1 4 . 2 3 6 4 .2741
- 2 8 -
T a b l e 2 . c
R e l a t i v e Order o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l R a t e s a t S e l e c t e d , . T i m e I n t e r v a l s : F i r s t • O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Croups
(1 = l o w e s t s u r v i v a l r a t e , 3 = h i g h e s t s u r v i v a l r a t e )
Outcome Measures
# Days From Assignment +
Total A s s i g n e d
Control l{ome Study In-Class
Age < 25 y r s .
Control ilome Study I n - C l a s s
A g e 2 25 y r s .
Control llome Study in-Class
S o c i a l D r i n k e r s
C o n t r o l . ltome S t u d y I n - C l a s s
H i d r a n g e P rob lem D r i n k e r s
Control Home Study In-Class
S e v e r e Prob lem D r i n k e r s
C o n t r o l 1 llome S t u d y t 2 I n - C l a s s , . [ 3
240
2 1 3 .
3 1 2
A c c i d e n t s
360
( F i g . 2)
D U I - R e c k l e s s • blovi.ng Vio l : A / I t O f f .
3 2 1
( F i g . 5)
3 3 2 2 1 1
( F i g . 8)
1 2 l 2 1 3 3 3 2
(Fig. 11)
3 3 3
1 1 2 2 1
( F i g . ] 4 )
3 3 2 2
1 1
480 2 4 0 3 6 0 4 8 0
( F i g . 3)
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 .3
.
2 3
( F i g . 17)
I. 1 l 2 2 2 3 3 , 3
( F i g . 6)
(Fie.. 9)
1 O z .
3
(l:i.g. 12)
( F i g . 15]
(Fig. 18)
2 3 1
1 2 3
1 2
3
1 2 3
,
1 2
240 360 480
( F i g . 4)
' 9
3 l
1 2 .5 3 2 1
( F i g . 71)
3 l l 3 2 2
2 ! 3
3 2 1
3
i :
(F i~ . 10)
(r ig . ~3)
%
(Fi,~ 16) , ~ .
. 9
3 1
( F i g . 19)
-29-
p l o t t i n g o f t h e d a t a . This p r e c i s i o n was nec~essar~ , t o r evea i : ~ a t t c r u s • , , . ,
but t he r e a d e r i s Caut ioned t h a t t h e a c t u a l magni tude ,)f between prot:p
d i f f e r e n c e s in s u r v i v a l r a t e a r e f r e q u e n t l y minute .
h ) a t t e r n was d e f i n e d a s c o n s i s t e n t i f : , . . . ~ .
1 . The r e l a t i v e o r d e r o f g r o u p s u r v i v a l r a t e s was ma:i'nta:ined • i
between a l l t h r e e t ime i n t e r v a l s ( i . e . , 240, 360, and
480 d a y s ) .
AND e i t h e r 2 or. 3
2. The o r d e r p a t t e r n o c c u r r e d in two or more a n a l y s e s f o r
t h e same: outcome measure ( e . g . , t o t a l a s s i g n e d age > ~
y e a r s , and s o c i a l d r i n k e r s , f o r a c c i d e n t s ) .
3. T h e o r d e r p a t t e r n o c c u r r e d in tlie same a n a l y s i s f o r two
or more outcome measures (e . , . , . , s e v e r e problem d r i n k e r s
f o r DUI's and a c c i d e n t s ) .
The f i r s t c r i t e r i o n f o r a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n e l i m i n a t e d a l l but
f i v e o f t h e e i g h t e e n a n a l y s e s summarized in Table 2 . c :
1. Severe problem d r i n k e r s / a c c i d e n t s (F ig . 17)
2. T o t a l a ss igned /DUI (F ig .3 )
3. Age > 25 yea rs /DUI (F ig .9 )
4. Midrange problem d r i n k e r s / D U I (F ig .15)
5. Age >_ 25 Years./movJng v i o l a t i o n (F ig . lO)
The f i r s t p a t t e r n l i s t e d above shows i n - c l a s s wi th t h e t~i.ghest
s u r v i v a l r a t e , t hen home s t u d y , fo l lowed by the c o n t r o l group wi th the
lowes t s u r v i v a l r a t e . t towever, t h i s p a t t e r n d id not o c c u r f o r any o f
the o t h e r a n a l y s e s u s ing a c c i d e n t d a t a , nor d id i t Occur in the otl~er
severe problem • drinker analyses using DUI's or moving violations, thus
by definition it was not consistent.
The second pattern identified was for theanalysis of total
assigned groups using DUI's as the outcome measure. In-class education
had the highest survival rate followed by home study and then the control
group with the lowest survival rate. This pattern was. replicated for
the age group 25 years and older with the DUI outcome measure. For
midrange problem drinkers, the control group still had the lowest. DIll
survival rate•but the home study group showed a hi~,her survival rate
than in-class education. Although the results of the midrange problem
drinker analysis did not exactly replicate the findings for total
-30-
a s s i g n e d and 25 y e a r s o r o l d e r , t i le l o w e r s u r v i v a l r a t e - f o r t h e c o n t r o l
g r o u p l e n d s ;it l e a s t some s u p p o r t t o t h e c o n t e n t i o n : t h a t we have
i . d e n t i f i e d a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n in t r e a t m e n t g roup s u r v i v a l --q ..... t . , ~.%2 . 1 .
The l a s t p a t t e r n in T a b l e 2 . c t o p a s s t h e f i r s t c r i t e r i o n o f
c o n s i s t e n c y was f o r t h e age 25 y e a r s o r o l d e r s u b g r o u p u s i n g t o t a l mov:ing
v i O l a t i o n s as t h e ou tcome m e a s u r e . In t h i s a n a l y s i s t h e i n - c l a s s
e d u c a t i o n g roup had t h e l o w e s t s u r v i v a l r a t e f o l l o w e d by .the c o n t r o l
g r o u p and t h e n t h e home s t u d y g roup w i t h t h e h i g h e s t s u r v i v a l r a t e .
l low.ever, t h i s p a t t e r n d i d n o t o c c u r f o r any o f t h e o t h e r analy.'-;e.~ u s i n g
moving v i o l a t i o n s , no r (lid i t o c c u r iln t h e o t h e r age 25 . y e a r s o r o l d e r
a n a l y s e s u s i n g DUI ' s o r a c c i d e n t s as t h e ou t come m e a s u r e . Thus , t h e
p a t t e r n was no t c o n s i s t e n t .
O v e r a l l , t h e r e were o n l y . t w o a n a l y s e s o f t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s <
ou t o f e i g h t e e n which p r o d u c e d a c o n s i s t e n t ( a l b e i t no t s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t ) ' p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s . The a n a l y s i s o f t o t a l a s s i g n e d g r o u p s
showed t h e l o w e s t DUI s u r v i v a l r a t e f o r t h e c o n t r o l g roup , and t h e
h i g h e s t DUI s u r v i v a l r a t e f o r t h e i n - c l a s s e d u c a t i o n g r o u p . Th i s
p a t t e r n was r e p l i c a t e d f o r t h e o l d e r o f f e n d e r g r o u p bu t no t f o r t h e
y o u n g e r o f f e n d e r s . One c o u l d a r g u e f o r o r a g a i n s t t h e r a t i o n a l i t y
o f t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n . Al l t h a t c a n r e a s o n a b l y be done a t t h e p r e s e n t
t i m e i s t o s i m p l y r e p o r t t h e f i n d i n g
One migh t .have e x p e c t e d t h e a b o v e p a t t e r n to. have been r e p l i c a t e d
amlong t h e s o c i a l d r i n k e r o f f e n d e r s , l f , h o w e v e r , t l : e o f f e n d e r s
d i a g n o s e d as s o c i a l d r i n k e r s t e n d e d t o be y o u n g e r , a n d . i , f y o u n g e r
o f f e n d e r s t e n d e d t o be l e s s i n f l u e n c e d by o u r e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s ,
t h e n t h e s o c i a l d r i n k e r s u b g r o u p would n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t a
more t r e a t a b l e p o p u l a t i o n . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , t h i s . s u g g e s t s , t h a t
s u b g r o U p s s h o u l d be d e f i n e d usin~g a p r o f i l e o f d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s
r a t h e r t han u s i n g c a t e g o r i e s o f a s i n g l e v a r i . a b l e .
The l a s t s e t o f a n a l y s e s a s s o c : i a t e d w i t h . t r e a t m e n t ou t come i n v o l v e d
7a compar ison o f t h e n o n - v o l u n t e e r s ample w i t h t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p
( r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e u n t r e a t e d v o l u n t e e r s ) . I f t h e s e g r o u p s d i f f e r e d
s i g n i f i c a n t l y .in s u r v i v a l e x p e r i e n c e we would have t o be c a u t i o u s in
g e n e r a l i z i n g any p o t e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t s found f o r t h e t o t a l
a s s i g n e d g r o u p s . T a b l e 3 . a shows t h e c u m u l a t i v e s u r v i v a l r a t e s a t
2,10, 360, and 48{~ d a y s from a s s i g n m e n t ( o r f rom s e n t e n c i n g f o r t he
- 3 1 -
T a b 1 e 3 . a
Summary 0 f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l R a t e s a t S e l e c t e d T i m e I n t e r v a l s : T o t a l C o n t r o l Group A s s i g n m e n t s ~ ,
v e r s u s N o n - V o h m t e e r s
Outcome H e a s u r e s
# Days From A s s i g n m e n t +
T o t a l A s s i g n e d
C o n t r o l N o n - V o l u n t e e r
Accidents
240 3 6 0 480
.9386 .9156 .8899 ,9413 .9183 .9038
! ) U I - R e c k I e s s
.240 360 480
. 9426 ,9266 .9128 ,9527 .9417 .9307
Moving V io l . -A /R O f f .
240 360 4RO
.8501 .8024 .7q39 • 8550 .8258 .~O76
# Days F r o m A s s i g n m e n t ÷
T o t a l .Ass igned
C o n t r o l N o n = V o h m t e e r
Table 3.b
Summary o f A c c i d e n t and V i o l a t i o n R a t e s a t S e l e c t e d Time I n t e r v a l s : T o t a l C o n t r o l Croup A s s i g n m e n t s
v e r s u s N o n - V o h m t e e r s
Outcome M e a s u r e s
A c c i d e n t s D U i - R e c k l e s s Moving V i o l . - A / R O f f .
240 360 480
• 0614 0844 .110] • 0587 .0817 • 0962
240 560 480 f 240 360 480
J . .
.0574 .0734 .0872 ] .1499 .1976 .2161
.0473 .0583 . 0 6 9 3 , . 1 4 5 0 .1742 .1924
# Days From Assignment 4
T o t a l A s s i g n e d
Cont ro 1 Non-Volunteer
Table 3.c
R e l a t i v e O r d e r o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i w t l R a t e s a t S e l e c t e d Time I n t e r v a l s : T o t a l C o n t r o l {;roup Assignment~; v e r s u s N o n - V o l u n t e e r s (1 = l o w e s t s u r v i v a l r a t e , 2 = h i g h e s t
s u r v i v a l r a t e )
Outcome M e a s u r e s
A c c i d e n t s DUI-Reckless b/oving V i o l . - A / R O f f .
P l o t o f Cummlative ,Surv iva l P ~ t e s For T o t a | F i r s t O f f e n d e r Treatment Groups and [ h e N o n v o l u n t e e r Sample: F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n or hny A/R O f f e n s e
Plot ,oN Cu=ulat ive Surv iva l Rates For F irs t Offender Treatment G r o u p s , ARe Loss Than 25 Years: F irs t I~I or Reckless
Driving Offense
/!
- 3 8 -
1 .C~O .99 ~gS -.q7 .96
. 9 0
. 8 9
. 8 8
.87
. 8 6
. 8 5
. 84
. 8 3
.s2
. 81
lu . 79 O
~ .78 ~ .77-
i . , , U
.75
.74;
.7~.; • 72 '
.71 !
. 70
. 69
.68
.67
0
. 9 5
. g z
. 91
C o n t r o l
Ilomo S tudy . . . . . .
l . - C l a s s . . . . . . . . .
.
% % w . . ~ - . . . . . . . . . .
° . ° ° . . . . . ° ° o ° o • ~ . . .
60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 $40 6~0 - 660 720
" ' " . . . . E x p o s u r e Time (Days) •
F i g u r e 7
Plo~ o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a i R a t e s F o r First O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t C r m l p s , A~e Less T h a n 2 S Y e a r s : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l R a t e s For F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t G r o u p s , Age 25 Y e a r s o r ' O l d e r : F i r s t A c c i d e n t i
P l o t o f Cumala t ive S u r v i v a l Ra te s For F i r s t O f f e n d e r T rea tmen t Croups , .Age 25 years or Older: First Nil or Reckless Driving
P l o t o f C u m u l a t i v e S u r v i v a l Rates For F i r s t O f f e n d e r Treatment Groups , S o c i a l D r i n k e r s F i r s t DUI or R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f £ e n s e
P l o t o f Cumulat ive S u r v i v a l R a t e s For F . i r s t O f f e n d e r Treatment~ Groups. Midrsnge Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t , DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g
Plot o f Cumulative Survival Rates For F i r s t r Offender Treatment Groups, Midrange Problem D r i n k e r s : F i r s t HovinR V i o l a t i o n o r Any 'A/R O f f e n s e
-48-
x .OOl~ ,.
b4
_,>
0 .P m
k#
J gJ
i99
.98
. 9 7
.96
.gS
.94
.9~
.92
o91
.90
.&9
.88
.87
.86
.85
D g O " Q O D
Q O
t I t | l ̧ l - - \ .
. m
. o .
l _ - k ' i
° o • ~ • • • • o . o . . o . • . o o _ ~ . o . .
• 8 4
.83
.82
•Control
llome S tudy
I n - C l a s s . . . . . . . . . . .
i 6 0 120 180 240 300 560 420 4801- 540 600 660 ~720 780 E x p o s u r e , T i m e C D a y s )
Figure 17 Plot of Cumulative Survival Rates for First Offender Treatment Groups, Severe
Plot of Cumulative Survival Rates For First I offender Treatment Groups, S e v e r e P r o b l e m D r i n k e r s : F i r s t DUI o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g O f f e n s e
Plo t o f Cumulat ive Survival Rates For First Offender Treatment Groups, Severe Problem Drinkers : . .Fi rs t Hoving Violation or Any A/R Offense
- $ I -
E f f e c t i v e n e s s of Letter. Monitoring and Fo l low-UpInterv i ews
; .' ' •
.' ,. ,
.]
The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the quarter ly l e t t e r monitorin~
and fo l low-up i n t e r v i e w procedures was based on the tot:al ass igned
groups, n o s u b g r 0 u p s w e r e : e x a m i n e d . The t o t a l sample"si.zes were as
follows:
Letter V..Ionitoring
' 74o Letter ~.1onitoring
T o t a l
Follow-Up Interviews
No Follow-Up Interviews
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/
1 , 9 2 6 .
1 ;939
3,86s
1 ,276
1,673
2,949
l~hile the random assignment of f i r s t o f fenders began in
September, 1977, the Follow-Up Unit was not s t a f f e d and operation,~.l
u n t i l ~ l a y I5, 1978. Consequently~ a l i cases ass igned t o the f o l l o w -
up in terv iew c o n d i t i o n p r i o r to t h i s date did not a c t u a I l y r e c e i v e
an in terv iew, and thus~, were excluded from t h e a n a l y s i s o f fo l l ow-up
e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Noreover, the r e l a t i v e s i z e o f the f o l l o w , u p and
no fo l low-up groups does not r e f l e c t the 50/50 ass ignment :proport ion .
This d i s p a r i t y r e s u l t e d when the eva lua tor was forced to reduce the
proport ion of c l i e n t s randomly ass igned to fo l low-up in terv iews
to 2Q p e r c e n t , f o r , a two month p e r i o d between~r.,~arch 23, 1979 .and
},lay 23, .1979 b e c a u s e - o f de lays in h i r ing add i t i ona l counse lors
to handle both i n i t i a l and ten-month in terv i ews . Unfor tunate ly , • . _ . . ,
t h i s reduct ion co inc ided with a high vo!ume period of court referr:-,.Is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Further, the 'as s ignment p r o p o r t i o n had" been -previously. s e t . at 20
percent .during the f i r s t month of u n i t operat io n between May 1 5 ,
1978, and June 20, 1978, in order to aIlow the f i r s t Follow-lip
Counselors and c l e r i c a l s t a f f a per iod of an- the - job t r a i n i n g .
The cumulat ive surv iva l ra tes at the Selected time i n t e r v a l s
are presented in Table 4 .a for both the l e t t e r m o n i t o r i n g and fo l low-up
in terv iew ana iyse s . TabIe 4.b shows the corresponding acc ident and
V i o l a t i o n ra tes and Table 4 .c shows the r e l a t i v e order of the cumulat ive
surv iva l r a t e s .
-52-
# Days From Assignment ÷
T o t a l Ass igned
L e t t e r M o n i t o r i n g
No L e t t e r M o n i t o r i n g
Follow-Up
No Foilow-Up
Day s From Assignment
Total Assigned
l,etter Monitoring
NoLetter Monitoring
F o l l o w - U p
No Follow-Up
Table 4.a
Summary of Cumulative Survival Rates at Selected Time Intervals: Letter Monitoring vs. No Letter Monitoring and Follow-Up vs. No Follow-Up
Outcome Measures
A c c i d e n t s DUI-Reckless Moving V io l . -A /R Off .
240 360 480
.9381 .9060 .8728
. 9 3 6 8 .9145 . 8 9 4 8
. 9441 9237 9 0 6 7
• 9434 .9274 .9108
240 360 480
• 9367 .9178 .9080
. 9 5 4 0 . 9 4 3 7 .9361
. 9667 9 5 8 4
. 9 5 9 9 .9514
.9542
.9431
240 360 480
.8337 .7957 .7691
. 8 5 7 7 . 8145 . 7 9 4 3
.8846 .8620 .8546
.9007 .8815 .8704
Table 4.b
Summary of Accident and Violation Rates at Selected • Time Intervals: Letter Monitoring vs. No Letter Monitoring and Follow-Up vs. No Follow-Up
Outcome Measures :
Accidents DUI-Reckless Moving Viol.-A/R Off.
240 360 480
.0619 .0940 .1272
.0632 .0855 .1052
• 0559 .0763 .0933
.0566.0726 .0892
2 4 0 360 480
• 0653 .0822 • 0920
.0460 .0563 .0639
240 360 480
/1663 .204-3 .2509
• 1423 .1855 .20!;7
.0333 . 0 4 1 6
.0401 .0486
.0458
0569
• 1154 . 1380 . 1454
0993 .1185 .1296
is3 _~
.- , ,
. 3
#.iDays From Assignment
Tota l Assigned
L e t t e r M o n i t o r i n g
No L e t t e r Moni tor ing
Follow-Up
No Follow-Up
Table 4 . c
R e l a t i v e O r d e r o f C u m u l a t i v e Surviva l Rates at S e l e c t e d Time I n t e r v a l s : L e t t e r Monitor in~ vs . No L e t t e r Moni tor i ng
a n d F o l l o w - U p vs . No Fo!low-U p (1 ~ l owes t surviv .al r a t e , 2 = h i g h e s t s u r v i v a l r a t e )
Outcome Measures
A c c i d e n t s l ) l l I - R e c k l e s s D
Moving V i o l . - A / R Off .
240 360 480
1
(F ig . 20)
1 1
2 2
(F ig . 23) 1 1
2 2
240 380 4gO
(F ig . 21)
1 1
~2 2
(Fig . 24) 2 2
1 1
240 560 4 8 0
(F ig . 22)
1 l
2 2
(F ig . 25) • 1 1
2 2
/
'-L
- 5 4 - i ~
The r e s u l t s o f t h e l e t t e r m o n i t o r i n g a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d a
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in t h e DUI s u r v i v a l r a t e
be tw een l e t t e r m o n i t o r i n g and no l e t t e r m o n i t o r i n g g r o u p s - ( p = . 0 1 8 3 ) .
Those o f f e n d e r s who were s e n t t h e l e t t e r s had a lower s u r v i v a l r a t e
t h a n t h o s e who were n o t . The 480 day s u r v i v a l r a t e s were .9080 and
.9361 f o r l e t t e r m o n i t o r i n g and no l e t t e r m o n i t o r i n g g r o u p s r e s p e c t i v e l y .
T h i s t e n d e n c y f o r t h e l e t t e r m o n i t o r i n g g roup t o p e r f o r m worse t h a n
t h e no l e t t e r m o n i t o r i n g g roup was r e p l i c a t e d f o r t o t a l moving
v i o l a t i o n s , and t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t f o r a c c i d e n t s , however , n e i t h e r
o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . ~
When t h e m o n i t o r i n g l e t t e r Was d e s i g n e d in t h e f a l l o f 1977 i t
was j u d g e d by t h e CDUI P r o j e c t s t a f f as w e l l as a sma l l sample
o f c l i e n t s t o be n 0 n - o f f e n s i v e . While i t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t
r e c e i v i n g seven such r e m i n d e r l e t t e r s o v e r : a two y e a r p e r i o d
c o u l d be p e r c e i v e d as a n n o y i n g , one would h a r d l y . e x p e c t them to
p r o d u c e a s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on d r i v i n g b e h a v i o r .
N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e s e P r e l i m i n a r y d a t a s u g g e s t t h a t t h e m o n i t o r i n g
l e t t e r p r o c e d u r e i s c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e , f rom t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f
p o s s i b l y i n c r e a s i n g DUI a r r e s t r a t e s .
The a n a l y s i s g f t h e f o l l o w - u p i n t e r v i e w P r o c e d u r e r e v e a l e d
no S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s be tween f o l l o w - u p and
no f o l l o w - u p g r o u p s , n o r . w e r e t h e r e any c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n s
among t h e t h r e e outcome measu re s
-55-
1,00
.99
. g e
/- /
I i
0
.] U
.97[.96 ' "
.gSi
. 94
, 93
. 92
. 86
.85
0 0 6O
:91
.90
. g 9
. 88
.87
%
\
\
, \
l l l
L e t t e r P l o n i t o r i u g
No L e t t e r ~ h ) n i t o r i u g
120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 780
Exposure Ti=e (D~ys)
FiguTe 20
P l o t o~ C t m u l a ~ i v e S u r v i v a l Rates For H o n i t o r i n ~ L e t t e r and No . Honi tor ing Letter Groups: F i rs t A c c i d e n t
Plot o f Cumulative Surviva l Rates For Fo]lowoUp and No Follow-Up Groups: F i r s t kloving Vio la t ion or Any A/R Offense
-61-
i
CON(; LUS ION
This i n t e r i m a s s e s s m e n t o f tile e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f CDUI f i r s t
O f f e n d e r e d u c a t i o n programs was based on a s e t o f e i g h t e e n 'an;:,lyses
C o n t r o l , home s t u d y ; - a n d i n - c l a s s e d u c a t i o n groups were compared
u s i n g s u r v i v a l r a t e s on t h r e e outcome measures : the f i r s t
a c c i d e n t subse que n t to random a s s i g n m e n t , the f i r s t DllI o r r e c k l e s s
dr iv ing• o f f e n s e , and " the f i r s t ~ moving v i o l a t i o n or any •alcohol•
r e i a t e d o f f e n s e . .Group compar i sons were made f o r the. t o t a l number
o f c l i e n t s a s s i g n e d , as o f Oct.ober, 1979, and f o r two age
s u b g r o u p s , . a n d t h r e e d i a g n o s t i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
None o f t h e e i g h t e e n a n a l y s e s r e s u l t e d in s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the t r e a t m e n t groups . Thus, as
o f O c t o b e r , 1979, t h e r e was l i t t l e ev idence to s u g g e s t . t ha t our
e d u c a t i o n PrOgrams had any e f f e c t on subsequen t d r i v i n g b e h a v i o r .
Ilowever, g iven the p r e l i m i n a r y n a t u r e o f t h e s e r e s u l t s , wi th l e s s
than h a l f o f t he r e s e a r c h sample exposed to the r i s k o f a c c i d e n t
i nvo lvemen t or a r r e s t fo r more than n ine montt~s, t he r e s u l t s cou!d
change wi th t i m e .
Even though t h e between group d i f f e r e n c e s were o f v e r y s m a l l
magn i t u de , an a t t e m p t was made to" i d e n t i f y c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n s
among the outcome d a t a . Of t h e e i g h t e e n a n a l y s e s p e r f o r m e d , o n l y
two p roduced a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s . The ana iys i . s o f t he
t o t a l r e s e a r c h sample u s ing subsequen t DU!'s showed t h e h i g h e s t
s u r v i v a l Yate f o r t he i n - c l a s s e d u c a t i 0 n group fo l lowed by t h e
home s t u d y group, and the lowest s u r v i v a l r a t e f o r t h e c o n t r o l
g roup . This o r d e r i n g o f DUI S u r v i v a l r a t e s a l s o appeared f o r t h e
age group 25 y e a r s or o l d e r but not fo r t h e younger o f f e n d e r s
b e t w e e n 18 and 25 y e a r s o f age. While no c la im is made t h a t th. is
o b s e r w ~ t i o n i s i n d i c a t i v e o f a l t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t , i t does sugges t
a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r v a r i o u s
o f f e n d e r subgroups .
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e a n a l y s e s o f t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s , the
s u r v i v a l e x p e r i e n c e o f a sample o f o f f e n d e r s who d id not v o l u n t e e r
f o r t h e CDUI P r o j e c t was compared wi th the s u r v i v a l e x p e r i e n c e f o r
v o l u n t e e r s , and the c o n t r o l group in p a r t i c u I a r . Air.hough t h e r e
-62- •
were no statistically significant differences in survival rates,
the non-volunteers showed consistently higher survival rates than
the control group volunteers on all three outcome measures. These
results may have been due to the fact that the non-volunteer sample
contained a relatively higher proportion of low BAC cases which . • . • . , . . . ,. "
were reduced to reckless driving, suggesting a higher Proportion
Of persons with less severe drinking problems. If this trend per-
sists, it maybe difficult to generalize the results of our treat-
ment analyses to those clients whodid riot VolUnteer.
The analysis of the quarterly letter monitoring procedure
indicated that the clients who were sent letters had a significantly
lower DUI survival rate than those clients who were not sent letters.
In terms of rearrest rates, 8.2 percent of the letter monitoring•
group versus 5.6 percent of the noletter.monitoring group were
arrested for DUI during the first year following random assignment
to these •conditions. This trend was also observed for moving viola-
ti0ns, and to a lesser extent for accidents, although the differences
were not statistically significant for these outc0me measures. Thus,
the preliminary results suggest that the monitoring letters may be
counterproductive from the standpoint of possibly increasing DUI
arrest rates. If this trend persists, we should at least • consider
changing or abandoning the procedure. It must be emphasized, however,
that the CDUI Project's monitoring letter procedure was an adjunct
to the Summary probation process and no analogy should•be drawn
between the monitoring letter procedure and the standard D~W practice
of sending warning letters to drivers upon an accumulation of negligent
operator points.
Finally, the analysis of clients assigned to receive follow-up
interviews versus those who were not, provided no evidence that
such interviews have an effect on driving behavior. •There were
no •statistically significant differences in survival rate on any
of the outcome measures, nor were there any consistent patterns.
-63-
7
APPENDIX A
A u t o m a t e d D r i v i n g R e c o r d D a t a C o l l e c t i o n P r o c e d u r e s
iiiil!~:~ -
• i i ~ .~'
I::!
!~! •
[ i l '
; ~
~ .~.
. ~ •
.~-
i
PREFAC~.~.
For t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d i n reading t h e following description of the driving record data collection system, several terms should be clarified. The Core DataBase is a large Computer file which contains the master records for every case referred to the CDUI Project; as well as a sample of cases for personswho chose not to volunteer. Each case represents a separate conviction/referral event (or conviction only:for nonvolunteers), and is identified by a CDUI case number; The case number ties together all the data records associated with a particular conviction/referral event, e.-g., arrest and conviction data, diagnostic and assignment data, and participation data.
An individual may have two or more CDUI cases in the Core Data Base representing separate court referral events, or a combination of referral and nOnvolunteer events. -An individual's CDUI cases are tied together by a series.0f characters known as a people key. People keys, CDUI case numbers, court case numbers, driver license numbers, and client names are retained not only in the Core Data Base, but also in a separate file of index records New indeX records are created after~each update of the Core Data Base and functionas a directory for locating.and extracting information f r o m i t h e Core Data Base.
T h e d a t a which p r o v i d e t h e outcome measures f o r impact a n a l y s e s a r e s t o r e d in t h r e e s a t e l l i t e d a t a b a s e s : one fo r . DMV driving records, one for Life Activities Inventory (LAI) interview data,-and one. for-Department.of Justice ffriminal records, In. these satellite systems there is one :set of .records per individual (regardless ofthe number of CDUI cases the individual may, have in the Core Data Base), and each set of records is tied to the Core Data Base by:the people keys. This allows information from the.various data bases to be merged for analysis
-65-
. - . • . , • . . . .
AUTOMATED DRIVING RECORD DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES -{,
S t e p 1: C r e a t e C a l i f o r n i a DMV record r e q u e s t s for a l l c l i e n t s r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e CDUI Core Data Base.
Core Data Base
Request Maker
P6199
R e q u e s t s by permanent C a l i f o r n i a d r i v e r s l i c e n s e number
Reques t s by name (DL Number Unknown, out o f s t a t e , t emporary , e t c . )
)ii:,S :~ ;i ~
i ~ ! , :v
~ g r ' -
,Ii
:d'r ~
ii. ~ .
S t e p 2 : I n i t i a l p r o c e s s i n g o f DMV r e t u r n t a p e s . These t a p e s c o n t a i n d r i v i n g r e c o r d da ta in p r i n t record format , i . e . , the DMV w r i t e s the i n f o r m a t i o n on tape in e x a c t l y t h e same form t h e y would use tO produce t h e i r o u t - o f - h o u s e p r i n t o u t on a l i n e p r i n t e r . However, t h e DMV has m o d i f i e d t h e i r p r o c e d u r e s to p r o v i d e us d e t a i l e d a c c i d e n t d a t a t h a t are no t n o r m a l l y a v a i l a b l e on t h e o u t - o f - h o u s e p r i n t o u t , number o f i n j u r i e s and f a t a l i t i e s , d r i v e r s o b r i e t y , e t c .
During t h i s s t e p 0 f t h e p r o c e s s t h e r e t u r n t a p e s are c o p i e d ( f o r o f f - s i t e backup) and a sample o f t h e c o n t e n t o f e a c h t a p e i s p r i n t e d . The p r i n t e d r e c o r d s a r e p e r u s e d i n an a t t e m p t t o d e t e c t any c h a n g e s in t h e p r i n t r e c o r d f o r m a t .
'A : '
5I: "
.)
S t e p 3 : , The e s s e n t i a l da ta needed for p r o j e c t e v a l u a t i o n are e x t r a c t e d from the r e t u r n e d DMV p r i n t r e c o r d s . The e x t r a c t i o n p r o c e s s t a k e s the s e l e c t e d d a t a f o r each c l i e n t and b u i l d s a v a r i a b l e number o f f i x e d l e n g t h (80 byte ) t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s . S e p a r a t e t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s are b u i l t f o r each r e p o r t e d a c c i d e n t , d r i v i n g v i o l a t i o n , and DMV l i c e n s i n g a c t i o n . In addition two header transaction records-are builtfor each client Containi~g.iicensenumber, date of birth.,, and other informationfor controllingthe process. Al! transaction r e c o r d s a r e w r i t t e n t o a. t a p e .
- 6 6 - %:
/ :~ i,~ ~
Step 3 : (Cont)
For some c l i e n t s , t he DMV can no t p r o v i d e us wi th tile d r iV ing r e c o r d s we r e q u e s t e d . A c l i e n t ' s r e c o r d was t e m p o r a r i l y u n a v a i l a b l e , t h e l i c e n s e number we used was i n v a l i d , or a c l i e n t ' s r e c o r d was no t y e t in t h e automated Db4V f i l e . In t h e l a t t e r c a s e , the DHV sends us a hand w r i t t e n d r i v i n g r e c o r d . " Tile e r r o r messages f o r - a l l u n s u c c e s s f u l s e a r c h e s a r e p r i n t e d in t h i s s t e p .
As a b y - p r o d u c t o f t he e x t r a c t p r o c e s s , a v a r i e t y o f p e r s o n a l d a t a , e . g . , , h e i g h t , w e i g h t , and AKA's a r e w r i t t e n t 9 a second t a p e . These p e r s o n a l d a t a . a r e Use fu l in c a s e s w h e r e we s u s p e c t t h a t we h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d the c o r r e c t d r i v i n g r e c o r d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t .
D r i v e r s L i c e n s e ~ ~ N ~ / "
Tape . ~ . ~ ]
/ Name Request Re turn T a p e .
E x t r a c t Program
P6399
E x t r a c t Program
P6399
J T r a n s a c t i o n Records f o r DL Returns
Pe r sona l • In format ion Records
~ T r a n s a c t i o n ReCords f o r Name
l R e t u r n s
x ~ P e r s o n a l ~ I n f o r m a t i o n
. ~ R e c o r d s
Step 4: E r r o r c o r r e c t i o n For u n s u c c e s s f u l s e a r c h e s . The e r r o r messages produced in S t e p . 2 a r e examined and where p o s s i b l e , t h e o r i g i n a l r e q u e s t r e c o r d s a r e m o d i f i e d and r e s u b m i t t e d . F o r example, r e q u e s t r e c o r d s wi th i n v a l i d d r i v e r s l i c e n s e numbers a r e r e s u b m i t t e d as name s e a r c h e s .
S t e p 5 ! P rocess e r r o r r e t u r n s t h r o u g h t h e e x t r a c t program as in S t e p 3 .
-67-
)
Error Return
Q J ExtraCt
Program
P6399
1 'ransact ion Records for Error Returns
Persona l In format ion Records
Q
Step 6 : H a n d w r i t t e n d r i v i n g r e c o r d s must be manually encoded f o r keypunching. Acc ident and v i o l a t i o n data a r e encoded i n t o t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d form, so t h a t t h e y look j u s t as i f they had been p r o c e s s e d t h r o u g h the e x t r a c t program in S teps 3 or 5. l towever, s i n c e t h i s i s a manual o p e r a t i o n i t i s more e r r o r prone and there i s a need f o r : a d d i t i o n a l e d i t i n g t h a t i s not n e c e s s a r y when p r o c e s s i n g d r i v i n g r e c o r d s r e c e i v e d on magnet ic t a p e .
In Step 6, the keypunched t r a n s a c t i o n record cards a r e p r o c e s s e d through the paper trans e d i t program to d e t e c t cod ing and keypunch e r r o r s . When the e r r o r s have been c o r r e c t e d the t r a n s a c t i o n records are w r i t t e n on t a p e .
T r a n s a c t i o n Record Cards •
Paper Trans Edit Program
~ . T r a n s a c t i o n Records or paper r e t u r n s
- 6 8 -
S t e p 7 : T h e DMV t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s a c c u m u l a t e d a s o f t h e l a s t s e m i a n n u a l s e a r c h a re p r e p a r e d f o r me rg ing w i t h t h e new t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s from t h e most r e c e n t s e a r c h , The- o l d DMV t r a n s a c t i o n s ( c a l l e d s o u r c e 1 h e a d e r s and d a t a t h e n w r i t t e n to a disk. f i l e ;
O ld DMV T r a n s a c t i o n Records from Las t Sea rch
Minor of Tra~
, l C u r r e n ~
i
M o d i f { c a t i o n n s a c t i o n s f o r
C u r r e n t P r o c e s s i n g P6599
are
, ~ l a t a T r a n s a c t i o n Records
Step 8 : C r e a t e t he "hooks" t h a t •wil l t i e c l i e n t r e c o r d s in ou r DMV Data Base to t h o s e in ou r Core .Data Base. These hooks a r e h e a d e r t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s , : t w o p e r c l i e n t , c a l l e d s o u r c e ~ h e a d e r s . Once t h e s e h e a d e r s a re , b u i l t f rom t h e Core. Data Base t h e y a r e w r i t t e n to a d i s k f i l e .
Core Data Base
• i • C r e a t e Core Data Base t looks
P6799
• I '
- 6 9 -
Step 9
/ . ' : - .
7
[
i
f 3-
This step cons i s t~ O[ i, se r i es of tape to d isk p-roce~scs Which place a l l new incom.inp, data i n t o d i s k f i l . e s . . Transac t ion records...for.I)i, aml Name re turns .(.produced ii~ Step 3) are. c a l l e d Source 3 headers rind d a t a . Transac-t ion records For the e r ro r r e tu rns .(produced .in .Step S) and for the paper r e t u r n s (produced in Step-6) are c a l l e d Source 2 headers and data .
Transact; ion Records " for .DL Returns
Transac t ion Tape to Records " for Name Returns Disk l l t i l i t y . ' ~ ' Program
i
Transac t ion Records. for iErrc~r Returns
77 .Transac:t-io":: ~ I " ]'ape t o . , I s k . U t i l i t y ] Records for, I DiProRra m j .
. /
l)isk f : i le of Source 3 headers and Data Transact ior) Records
t . Disk f i i e of Source 2 Iteaders anti-Data Transac t ion Records
-70-
L ,
, !
,:'i ' [>
. . )
i . • . F
. / : .
.,~ .,~ i ~, ~ :,~
: [ . '.(.~ '
S t e p 10: A l l n e c e s s a r y r e c o r d s from s o u r c e s 0, 1 , 2, and 3 a r e s o r t e d t o g e t h e r by t r a n s a c t i o n t y p e ( i . e . , h e a d e r , a c c i d e n t d r i v i n g v i o l a t i o n and l i c e n s i n g a c t i o n ) and by s t a t u t e
• . s e c t i o n numbers . The s o r t e d r e c o r d s a r e t h e n p r o c e s s e d t h r o u g h t h e wash program.
The~wash program c o n t a i n s a l a r g e t a b l e o f V e h i c l e Code Sec t i ' on numbers , as w e l l as s e l e c t e d s e c t i o n s f rom o t h e r s t a t u t e s t h a t a r e commonly r e p o r t e d t o t h e DMV, e . g . ,
B u s i n e s s and P r o f e s s i o n s , H e a l t h and S a f e t y , Pena l Code. The v a r i o u s s t a t u t e s e c t i o n s ( d r i v i n g v i o l a t i o n s ) a r e o r g a n i z e d f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s i n t o seven o f f e n s e c a t e g o r i e s o f . m o v i n g v i o l a t i o n s and f o u r c a t e g o r i e s o f nonmoving v i o l a t i o n s .
In this step of the process, all the driving violation transaction records are compared with the table and when the section number, in each transaction record matches a section number in the table, the appropriate Offense category value is placed in the transaction record. (Note: All accident transactions are given th~ same category value, licensing action transactions are given one of three values. This is a simple process which is actually accomplished by the extract program in Steps 3 and 5).
If the violation indicated inthe transaction record does not have ,a match in the table, the transaction record is r e j e c t e d and t h u s e l i m i n a t e d from f u r t h e r p r o c e s s i n g . Less t h a n f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e d r i v i n g v i o l a t i o n t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s a r e e l i m i n a t e d in t h i s manner . These i n c l u d e p e d e s t r i a n and b i c y c l e v i o l a t i o n s , minor e q u i p m e n t v i o l a t i o n s , p a r k i n g V i o l a t i o n s , and a number o f u n i d e n t i f i e d v i o l a t i o n s o f o b s c u r e s t a t u t e s .
-71-
Source ~ Headers
From Core ( "" " ' . " ; t Data Base
. • . . , " •
Source 1 Headers and Data Transac t ion Records
DbtV D a t a ( From Last Search
Source 2 lleaders and . . . . . . . . . Data Transact ion Records ,
" ( (
/Source 3 lieaders and - • / / D a t a Transac t ion Records
/ t " ' ~ sea rch , DL and Name
: / \ - 7 7 \ R e t u r n s " ' ' "
! Sort by " " : 1 .Transac t ion I
[Type and Statute] .[ Section.Numbersj
The Wash Program Attach Offense
" Categor ies fo r V i o l a t i o n Type Transac t ions
P6999
Step 11: In p r e p a r a t i o n fo r t he f i na l s tages of p roces s ing , the t r a n s a c t i o n records are compared with the l a t e s t Core Data Base index records to assure t ha t a l l CDUI case numbers are co r r ec t and have not been changed s ince the DMV reques t tapes were c rea t ed in Step 1. When the CDUI number and assignment date on the t r a n s a c t i o n records f ind a match in the index records , the appropr i a t e people key i s a t t ached t o the t r a n s a c t i o n r eco rds . Matched and unmatched t r a n s - ac t i on records are ~rri t ten on sepa ra te tape f i l e s .
!
- 7 2 -
Q~ From Wash Program
: [ T r a n s a c t i o n
Core Data Base Records a r e Index Records s o r t e d by
~ CDUI Number Index Match and peop le key a t t a c h P7199
Matched T r a n s a c t i o n Records wi th People Keys
Unmatched (bad CDUI Number) T r a n s a c t ion Records
Step 12: The CDUI number and a s s ignmen t d a t e e r r o r s in t h e unmatched t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s a r e c o r r e c t e d . The p r i m a r y method o f c o r r e c t i n g such e r r o r s i s to compare t h e unmatched t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s w i t h our f i l e o f vo ided CDUI numbers . The old vo ided CDUI numbers a r e r e p l a c e d w i t h t h e new c o r r e c t numbers. The CDUI c o r r e c t e d t a p e i s t h e n run back th rough S tep 11 so t h a t t he a p p r o p r i a t e p e o p l e keys can be a t t a c h e d . Then the i n i t i a l l y matched t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s from t h e f i r s t pas s , and the CDUI c o r r e c t e d - m a t c h e d t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s from the second pass a r e w r i t t e n to a d i sk f i l e and a r e s o r t e d by p e o p l e key.
-73-
CDUI
I n i t i a l l y matched T r a n s a c t i o n Records
C o r r e c t ' T r a n s a ~ ]
Tape tO Disk ,
U t i l i t y
Sort. by .People Key
( . . . . , . . '
Step 13: By the time tile t r a n s a c t i o n records reach t h i s s tep of the process they have been sor ted on the fo l lowing paramete r s :
.People • Key - t i e s a l l records to an i n d i v i d u a l c l i e n t . T_ransacti0n Type - Header, A c c i d e n t , . D r i v i n g V i o l a t i o n ,
Licens ing Action. Offense Category Accident (one c a t . ) , Driving V i o l a t i o n s
( e i e v e n c a t . ) , L icens ing Action ( th ree c a t . ) , Headers 5ave value ~ . . ..
Offense. Date Date of acc iden t or d r i v i n g v i o l a t i o n , or .. e a r l i e s t date on l i c e n s i n g ac t i on t r a n s a c t i o n s ,
.headers .b lank .
SectiOn Spec i f i c . s t a t u t e s ec t i on number for d r i v i n g ' v i o l a t i o n s and l i c e n s i n g act ions. , t ime of
, • .day for a c c i d e n t s , headers b l ank .
. - . . .
Source - ~ = Core Da ta .BaseHeade r s , 1 = DNIV da t a from l a s t search , 2 = DMV data from e r r o r r e t u r n s and paper, 3 = DMV data from cu r r en t DL and name r e tu rn t apes :
Search. Date - Date each t r a n s a c t i o n record was obta ined from DblV.
-74-
The s o r t e d t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s must now be c o l l a p s e d do~m so t h a t d u p l i c a t e r e c o r d s a r e e l i m i n a t e d , l e a v i n g o n l y one t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d p e r u n i q u e a c c i d e n t , d r i v i n g v i o l a t i o n and l i c e n s i n g a c t i o n e v e n t . A c l i e n t ' s t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s a re c o n s i d e r e d d u p l i c a t e when t he t r a n s a c t ' i o n t y p e , o f f e n s e c a t e g o r y , o f f e n s e d a t e and s e c t i o n number a r e i d e n t i c a l ( s o u r c e and s e a r c h d a t e a r e no t used in t h i s
: compar i son) . D u p l i c a t e r e c o r d s a re t h e r u l e n o t t he e x c e p t i o n , b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d o f a s p e c i f i c o f f e n s e i s c o l l e c t e d a t e v e r y s i x -mon th s e a r c h , u n t i l i t i s e v e n t u a l l y purged from the C a l i f o r n i a DMV a u t o m a t e d d r i v i n g r e c o r d f i l e .
In .cases o f d u p l i c a t e t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s , t he most r e c e n t 0 n e i s r e t a i n e d and t h e o l d e r r e c o r d i s pu rged . The r e a s o n i n g beh ind t h i s i s t h a t t he more r e c e n t v e r s i o n o f t h e r e c o r d may have new or amended i n f o r m a t i o n such as c o u r t d i s p o s i t i o n d a t a .
I f a p r e v i o u s l y c o l l e c t e d t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d was purged from t h e C a l i f o r n i a DMV sys tem be tween t h e l a s t s e a r c h and t he c u r r e n t s e a r c h , i t w i l l no t o f Course be r e p r e s e n t e d among t h e c u r r e n t t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e r e i s no d u p l i c a t i o n and t h e p r e v i o u s i y c o l l e c t e d r e c o r d . w i l i be r e t a i n e d /
Th i s c o l l a p s i n g p r o c e s s h a s " p r o v e d to be q u i t e a c c u r a t e a n d e f f i c i e n t , however , t h e r e a r e p o t e n t i a l s i t u a t i o n s in which e r r o r can o c c u r . For example , i f a c l i e n t V i o i a t e d t he e x a c t same s t a t u t e s e c t i o n t w i c e on t he same day , i t would appea r to be a d u p l i c a t e r e c o r d and one o f t he o f f e n s e s would be purged . D u r i n g t he deve lopment o f t he D~N d a t a c o l l e c t i o n sys tem l i t e r a l l y hundreds o f o f f e n s e r e c o r d s were examined and not once were two same day., same s e c t i o n V i o l a t i o n s d e t e c t e d . Thus, any l o s s o f d a t a due to t h i s s i t u a t i o n w o u l d be minimal.. N o n e t h e l e s s , s p e c i a l p r e c a u t i o n s are taken with DUI violations.
When two or more Dui transaction records with the same offense date are encountered, the citation/docket number field is examined, lf'the Court docketnumbers are identical for all the transaction records they are considered duplicate and. only the singIe most recent record (in sort order) is retained. On the other hand, if there are different docket numbers each unique docket number is considered a separate DUI event, and the most recent transaction record :is kept for each event. All same day DUI transaction recOrds retained in this manner are displayed for visual confirmation.
The p r o c e d u r e o f u s i n g the c o u r t d o c k e t number in s e p a r a t i n g same .day - same s e c t i o n v i o l a t i o n r e c o r d s i s r e s t r i c t e d to DUI o f f e n s e s o n l y . This i s b e c a u s e t he c i t a t i o n / d o c k e t f i e l d i s s u b j e c t ~ t o change. For example , an o f f e n s e r e c o r d c o n t a i n i n g a p o l i c e c i t a t i o n number may be amended l a t e r t o show a c o u r t docke t number. Th is i s no t uncommon in f a i i u r e t o a p p e a r c a s e s . When the c o l l a p s i n g c r i t e r i a a r e changed bo th new and o ld v e r s i o n s o f a r e c o r d w i l l be r e t a i n e d . a s s e p a r a t e l e v e n t s .
-75-
In f a c t , t he loss . o f un ique even t r e c o r d s d u r i n g t h e c o l l a p s e p r o c e s s i s no t as s e r i o u s a prob!em as r e t a i n i n g two or more r e c o r d s f o r what is a c t u a i l y a s i n g l e e v e n t . Speeding v i o l a t i o n s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y prone to t h i s t y p e o f e r r o r . The C a l i f o r n i a Veh ic l e Code h a s s e v e r a l s e c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g e x c e s s i v e speed. When a pe r son i s s topped f o r e x c e s s i v e speed he i s f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d f o r v i o ! a t i n g - t w o s e c t i o n s o f t h e Veh i c l e .Code e . g . t h e . b a s i c s p e e d .law
, ) . . , .
and the " t e m p o r a r y " 55 mi l e s per hour speed law. Both o f t he c i t e d s e c t i o n s r e f e r to one b e h a v i o r a l e v e n t and to count each o f them as unique even t s would d i s t o r t t he d a t a - f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s .
.To avoid doub le c o u n t i n g s i n g l e speed ing o f f e n s e s i n t h e c o l l a p s e p r o c e s s , t he v a r i o u s Veh i c l e Code s e c t i o n numbers r e f e r r i n g to e x c e s s i v e speed a r e a l l c o n v e r t e d to t h e s e c t i o n number f o r t h e ba s i c speed law. (The c o n v e r s i o n a c t u a l l y t a k e s p l a c e in the e x t r a c t program, S teps 5 and 5) . This p r o c e d u r e f o r c e s t h e m u l t i p I e speed ing c i t a t i o n s t o appear as d u p l i c a t e r e c o r d s and 0 n l y t he most r e c e n t one i s r e t a i n e d .
I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e to ge t double r e p o r t i n g s o f a c c i d e n t s . For example, a pe r son may f i l e a F i n a n c i a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y (FR) Acc iden t Report and then the p o l i c e f i l e t h e i r r e p o r t o f t h e same a c c i d e n t . Sometimes both r e c o r d s a r e r e t a i n e d in t h e C a l i f o r n i a I ) ~ f i l e , a l t h o u g h such c a s e s a r e . i n f r e q u e n t . In m o s t c a s e s , i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e FR and P o l i c e r e p o r t s a r e combined i n t o one a c c i d e n t r e c o r d .
in t he p r o c e s s o f C o l l a p s i n g d u p l i c a t e a c c i d e n t r e c o r d s , t ime o f a c c i d e n t i s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r s t a t u t e s e c t i o n number. S ince FR r e p o r t s do n o t c a r r y t ime o f (lay, p o l i c e and FR
. : . . r e p o r t s o f t h e same a c c i d e n t do not appear a s d u p l i c a t e s . An a t t e m p t i s made to c o n t r o l t he d o u b l e c o u n t i n g o f a c c i d e n t s by d i s p l a y i n g a l l same day a c c i d e n t r e c o r d s . I f a f t e r i n s P e c t i n g t h e s e a c c i d e n t s r e c o r d s t h e r e a p p e a r s ' t o be a d u p l i c a t i o n prob lem, we l a t e r remove one o f t h e d u p l i c a t e ~eco rds . through a s p e c i a l p r o c e s s .
I t a l s o should be no t ed t h a t t he c o l l a p s i n g o f l i c e n s i n g a c t i o n t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s i s somewhat more c o m p l i c a t e d than f o r a c c i d e n t a n d d r i v i n g v i o l a t i o n r e c o r d s . S ince l i c e n s i n g a c t i o n s . c a n be s t a y e d , r e i n s t a t e d , t e r m i n a t e d , and o t h e r w i s e m o d i f i e d over t ime , i t becomes even more d i f f i c u l t t o p r e v e n t t h e r e t e n t i o n o f - m u l t i P l e r e c o r d s f o r un ique e v e n t s . S u f f i c e i t to s a y t h a t e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t Was made to m a i n t a i n t he i n t e g r i t y o f . l i c e n s i n g a c t i o n d a t a .
in a d d i t i o n to e l i m i n a t i n g d u p l i c a t e r e c o r d s , a t - e a c h s i x - month u p d a t e , t h e c o l l a p s e . p r o g r a m p roduces a nUmber o f
U s e f u l " e r r o r " messages . When the d r i v e r s l i c e n s e . n u m b e r in t h e C a l i f o r n i a DMV-records i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e l i c e n s e number in o u r C o r e Data Base r e c o r d s , a message .i s p r i n t e d
-76-
and bo th l i c e n s e numbers a r e w r i t t e n t o a t a p e so t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e f o r r e s e a r c h a t a l a t e r d a t e . The same p r o c e s s o c c u r s when b i r ~ h d a t e s c o n f l i c t . . The DMV l i c e n s e numbers a r e assumed t o be C o r r e c t and l a t e r
. i n . S t e p 1S t h e Core Data Base r e c o r d s a r e u p d a t e d w i t h t h e new l i c e n s e numbers . B i r t h d a t e s a r e n o t u p d a t e d b u t
l a r g e . d i s c r e p a n c l e s a r e i n v e s t i g a t e d .
F i n a l l Y , t h e c o l l a p s e p r o g r a m p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n E t h e s u c c e s s o f ofir s e a r c h e s • In most c a s e s we r e c e i v e d r i v i n g r e c o r d s f o r e v e r y r e q u e s t , However , in some c a s e s we n e v e r r e c e i v e t h e d r i v i n g r e c o r d f o r a c l i e n t even a f t e r s e v e r a l r e q u e s t s have been made ( m i s s i n g d a t a ) , o r we may ]lave r e c e i v e d a d r i v i n g r e c o r d on t h e l a s t s e a r c h
b u t t h i s t i m e we d i d n o t ( l o s t c o n t a c t ) . Such p rob lem s i t u a t i o n s a r e i n d i c a t e d by t h e c o l l a p s e p r o g r a m .
- . L ~r~mber and ~ The Coilapse]
S o r t e d T r a n s a c t i o n Reco rds
/ C o l l a p s e d [ ' r r a n s a c t i o n
~ Records
S t e p 14: The c o l l a p s e d t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s a r e s o r t e d by c o u r t d o c k e t number and o f f e n s e c a t e g o r y . The d o c k e t numbers f o r a l l DUI and R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s a r e t h e n ma tched w i t h t h e d o c k e t numbers on t h e Core Data Base c o u r t i n d e x • r e c o r d s . When a match o c c u r s a f l a g i s s e t i n t h e t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d : i n d i c a t i n g t h a t we have i d e n t i f i e d an i n d e x a r r e s t , i . e ~ , an a r r e s t t h a t e v e n t u a l l y l e d t o t h e C l i e n t ' s r e f e r r a l t o t h e CDUI P r o j e c t .
Tlle Cour t m a y h a v e made one r e f e r r a l t o t h e CDUI P r o j e c t ~s tl~e r e s u l t o f two or more o f f e n s e s . T y p i c a l l y , t h e s e o f f e n s e s o c c u r r e d o n l y a few d a y s o r weeks a p a r t . In such c a s e s t h e CDUI E v a l u a t i o n s t a f f i n d i c a t e s t h e d o c k e t number
f o r t h e most r e c e n t o f f e n s e as t h e p r i m a r y c o u r t c a s e and t h e o t h e r d o c k e t numbers as s u p p l e m e n t a l c o u r t c a s e s .
-77-
The C o u r t may a l s o have made two o r m o r e s e p a r i t e r e f e r r a l s ; t o t h e CDUI P r o j e c t w h e n a c l i e n t ' s a r r e s t s w e r e months o r even y e a r s a p a r t , t h u s R e n e r a t i n g two o r more s e p a r a t e CDUi c a s e .numbers f o r a c l i e n t . . I l l Such s i t u a t i o n s one
• Case number i s c o n s i d e r e d t h e m a j o r c a s e , w h i l e t h e o t h e r s a r e c o n s i d e r e d n o n m a j o r . The c a s e which r e s u l t e d in a random a s s i g n m e n t - ( w h i c h can o c c u r o n l y once p e r '
. i n d i v i d u a I ) " i s - a l w a y s c o n s i d e r e d t h e m a j o r , c a s e / i n t h e o t h e r c a s e s , t h e c l i e n t i s r e f e r r e d , t o a t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m
• a t t h e I n t a k e C O U n s e l o r , s d i s c r e t i o n and a r e t h u s nonrandom, n o n m a j o r c a s e s . "
Nhen t h e d o c k e t number in a t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d m a t c h e s a d o c k e t number in t h e Core Data Base i ndex r e c o r d s , n o t o n l y i s i t i d e n t i f i e d as b e l o n g i n g t o an i n d e x a r r e s t b u t an i n d i c a t i o n i s made a s t o w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t c a s e i s p r i m a r y o r s u p p l e m e n t a l , and t h e a s s o c i a t e d CDUI c a s e major or n o n m a j o r . . -.
Index a r r e s t i n f o r m a t i o n i s e x t r e m e l y v a l u a b l e in d a t a b a s e m a i n t e n a n c e . The p r e s e n c e o f an i n d e x a r r e s t d o c k e t
n u m b e r i s p r o b a b l y t h e s i n g l e b e s t i n d i c a t i o n t h a t we a c t u a l l y . . h a v e . r e c e i v e d t h e c o r r e c t • d r i v i n g r e c o r d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t . Th i s i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o h e l p s u s t r a c k down m i s s i n g - i n d e x a r r e s t r e c o r d s
i-
. [ S o r t by C o u r t . . . . , l Docke t Number C o r e Da ta ~ase I . . . . .
• ' _ , [ana u t t e n s e Index R e c o r a s [~ . • . [ ~ a t e g o r y • •
[ u r t M a t c h . . . . . . . " [ Program . . .
• " : [ P7599
( (
" C o l l a p s e d T r a n s a c t i o n . . R e c o r d s
C o u r t Matched T r a n s a c t i o n R e c o r d s
--78-
~.-:":'i!i:~i:~."-!:i~::i:~-:Step :15. ~:. T h e : C o u r t matchi~d:"~ransact i o n - . records a r e s o r t e d by p e o p l e .~::~:..:ii~.::~ ,~!:¢;~:.:~.: ::5~ ". : . k e y The s o r t e d i r a n s a e t i . o n r e c o r d s a l o n g w i t h t h e Core ~:'.::!::!~i~: ~ ~i." :::~3: ( ~ : ~Data Base Re6or i i s : . : a re ; then . . p r o c e s s e d t h r o u g h t h e p r o g r a m
. ::-/~i:JY:~-i~:ii<:(::;(-~.,,..:..- : - ' ' :which b u i l d s - t h e : CDUI, DMV Data :Base r e c O r d s . T h i s p r o c e s s -...-:,< .~.~ ~..,..:::. ~/:)?:. =. c o n s i s t s o f moving"da. t a : from.. the: ~smal 1 e r t r a n s a c t i on
r e C o r d s (80 b y t e s + k e y s ) t o t h e l a r g e r d a t a b a s e r e c o r d s (150 b y t e s + k e y s ) . W h i l e - a d j u s t i n g t h e r e c o r d s i z e i s n o t e s s e n t i a l , i t does make e x t r a c t i o n o f d a t a f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s e a s i e r , s i n c e t h e r e c o r d , l e n g t h and t h e p o s i t i o n of. t h e k e y s and o t h e r c o n t r o l d a t a now c o r r e s p o n d t o Core Data Base and LAI Data B a s e : R e c o r d s .
In a d d i t i o n t o b u i l d i n g a t a p e f i l e o f d a t a b a s e r e c o r d s , some mino r m o d i f i c a t i o n s a r e made in t h e t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s and t h e y a r e a l s o w r i t t e n t o t a p e . These t r a n s a c t i o n r e c o r d s w i l l be t h e o l d d a t a i n p u t f o r t h e n e x t p r o c e s s in s i x m on t hs .
F i n a l l y , t h e Core Data B a s e r e c o r d s a r e u p d a t e d w i t h t h e new, C o r r e c t e d d r i v e r s l i c e n s e n u m b e r s .
T h e r e a r e two sma l l c l e a n - u p t a s k s w h i c h c o m p l e t e , t h e p r o c e s s . The DMV Data Base r e c o r d s a r e s o r t e d i n t o t h e e x a c t same o r d e r as t i le Core Data Base , a n d t h e u p d a t e d Core Data Base i s p r o c e s s t h r o u g h t h e Core Da ta Base i n d e x b u i l d i n g p rogram to make new Core Da ta Base i n d e x r e c o r d s c o n t a i n i n g t h e new d r i v e r s l i c e n s e n u m b e r s .
- 7 9 -
• , . - • . .
Core Data Base
Updated
'i. Come D ~
l l
Updated Core Data Base
Core Data Base
Index B u i l d e r
P0599
New Index " ~ Records [ With ~ ] Corrected k x . J DI, N u m b e r s ~
- ' -" " " ; L
~ Court M a t c h e d : Transaction Record s '
• . . . '
i I CDUI DMV,Data Base Record . . . . • Builder
P7799
Transaction Records For Next Processing
I n S i x Months
.- {
~ t A " CDUI D ~ Data 3 ~ - - ~ Base Records
I I ~ DMV Data Base
Records
Sort Into CoreData Base, ,, . ' •
Order '
: Final S o r t e d D~W Data Base Records
-80- " i ! "~ •
<;
APPENDIX B
Survival Data and Test Statistic Summary Tables
for First Offender Treatment Group Analysis
-81-
APPENDIX g DIRECTORY
Page
Total Assigned Groups (and Non-Volunteer Sample) ............. 83
0.003 O. 004 O. 005 0.005 O. 006 0.006 O. 007 O. 007 0.008 O. 008 0.009 0.009 0.010 0 .010 0.011 0 .012 0 .012 0 .012 0.012 0.013 n.013 0.013 0.013 O. 020 0 .020 O. 020
Comparison of F i r s t Offender Treatment Groups Using the Lee,Desu S t a t i s t i c : First Accident
I GO - . j
Overal l Comparison
Group Name
Control, Home .Study In -Class
Pai rwise Comparison
Group Name
Control Home Study
Pai rwise Comparison
Group Name
Control In-Class
Pairwise Comparison
Group Name
Home Study In-Class
Statistic
Total N
1270 1309 1286
S t a t i s t i c
Tota l N
1270 1309
Statistic
Total N
1270 1286
Statistic
Total N •
1309 1286
0.637
Uncen
101 114
I I 0
0;640
Uncen
101 114
•0.129
Uncen
101 110
0.182
Uncen
114 !10
D o F ,
Cen
1169 1195 I176
D.F.
Cen
1169 i195
D.F.
Cen
1169 1176
D:. F.
Cen
1195 1176
2 : Prob.
Pet Cen
92.05 91.29 91.45
I Prob.
Pct Cen
92.05 91.29
1 Prob.
Pct Cen
92.05 91.45
1 Prob.
Pct Cen
91.29 91 .45
0 .727 i , NS
Mean Score
13.176 -13.756 0;98989
0.4238, NS
Mean Score
9.1850 -8 .9114
0.7190, NS
Mean Score
3.9906 -3.9409
0.6700, NS
Mean Score
-4.8442 4.9308
I OO OO
I
Table B l . f
Compar ison Of First O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Group"and . t h e N o n - V o l u n t e e r Samnle Using t h e Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c " F i r s t Acc iden t
O, 002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 O. 004 O, 004 0.004 O. 0O4 O. 0O4 O. 004 0.005 0. 005 0.005 0.005 O. 005 0.005 0.005 O. 006 0. 006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 O. 006
I
4~ I
Table B2 e
Comparison Of F i r s t O f f e n d e r Trea tment Groups Using the Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : . " i "
First DUI or Reck le s s Driving Offense
O v e r a l l Comparison
Group Name
Con t ro l Home Study I n - C l a s s
Statistic
Total N
1270 1309
:1286
' 0.646 D.F.
Uncen Cen
82 1188 80 1229 74 1212
2
PCT CEN
93.54 93.89 94.25
PROB. O.7239,NS
Mean Score
-12.892 0 . 7 9 6 7 9
11,921
Pairwise CompariSon Statistic O. 194 D. F 1 PROB, 0.6598,NS
Group Name. Total N Uncen Cen PCT CEN Mean Score
Control Home Study
1270 1309
82 80
1188 9 3 . 5 4 1229 93.89
-4.6457 4..5073
Pairwise Comparison
Group Name
Control In-class
Pairwise Comparison
Group Name
Home Study In -C la s s
Statistic
Total N
127o 1286
S t a t i s t i c
Total N
1309 1286
O. 642
Uncen
82 74
0. 136
Uncen
80 74
D.F.
Cen
1188 1212
D.F.
Cen
1229 1212
1 •PROB.
PCT. CEN
93.54 94.25 :
1 PROB.
Pcr c E N
93.89
0.423n,NS
btean-Score
:8.2465 8.1439
0.7126,NS
~4ean Score
"3.7105 3,7v68
&
Table B2. f
Comparison o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r Trea tment Group and t h e Non-Volun tee r Sample UsJ.nR the Lee-Desu Statistic" First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense
comparison o f F i r s t Offender Treatment Group and the Non-Volunteer Sample • ~ Reckless Driving Offense Usin~ the Lee-Desu Statistic: Fa.r..~ Dill or (Con t inued)
Comparison o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r Trea tmen t Groups Using t h e Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c i V i o l a t i o n or Any A/R Of fense
First Hoving
I
C
I
Overall Comparison Statistic
Group Name Total N
Control 1270 Home Study 1309 In-Class 1286
Pairwise Comparison Statistic
Group Name Total N
Control 1270 Home Study 1309
Pairwise Comparison Statistic
Group Name Total N
Control . 1270 In-Class 1286
Pairwise Comparison Statistic )
Group Name Total N
Home Study 1309 In-Class 1286.
0.204 D.F.
Uncen Cen
212 1058 221 1088 229 1057
O.001 D.F.
Uncen Cen
212 1058 221 1 0 8 8
0,170 D.F.
Uncen Cen
212 1058 229 I057
0.134 D.F.
Uncen Cen
221 1088 229 1057
2 Prob. 0.9030, NS
Pct Cen Mean Score
83.31 7.'3543 83.12 5.4347 82.19 ~12.795
1 Prob. 0.9727, NS
Pct Cen Mean Score
83.31 0.56614 83:12 -0.54927
1 Prob. 0.6800, NS
Pct Cen Mean Score
83.3! 6.7882 82.19 -6.7037
1 Prob. 0 .7147, NS
Pct Cen Mean Sco~e
83.12 5.9840 82.19 -6.0910
i
fD b O
i
Table B3 . f
Compar i son o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t , G r o u p s and t h e N o n - V o l u n t e e r Sample Us ing t h e Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e
f .
O v e r a l l Compar i son S t a t i s t i c 1.741 D.F. 3 Prob . 0 . 6 2 7 8 , NS
Group Uncen Name. Total N
Nonvolunteer 3240 Control 1270 Home S tudy 1309 I n - C l a s s 1286
Group Name Total N- Uncen Cen P c t Cen Mean Score
N o n v o l u n t e e r C o n t r o l
P a i r w i s e Compar i son
Group Name
N o n v o l u n t e e r Home S tudy
P a i r w i s e Compar i son
3240 1270
Statistic
Total N
3240 1309
Statistic
532 2708 212 1058
0 . 5 6 5 D.F.
U n c e n Cen
532 2708 221 1088
o . o o l D .F .
8 3 . 5 8 83.3.1
1 Prob .
Pct Cen
83.58 83. I Z
i P r o b .
9.3753 - 2 3 . 9 1 8
0.4522, NS
Mean Score
1 0 . 4 8 6 - 2 5 . 9 5 4
0 .9727 , NS
Group Name
C o n t r o l Itome S tudy
Total N
1270 1309
Uncen
212 •221.
cen
I058 1088
Pct Cen
83.31 83.12
Mean Score
0.56614 -0.54927
I t ~ " •
Table B3.f (Cont.)
Comparison of First Offender Treatment Groups and the Non-Volunteer Sample Using the Lee-Desu Statistic: First Moving Violation or Any A/R Offense (Continued)
0 . 8 1 7 8 0 .8178 0 .8088 O. 7987 O. 7987 0 '7987 O-.7987 O. 7987 0.7987 0.7987 0.7987
SE of Cumul Survi- ving
0.007 O. 009 Q~010 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.013 O. 014 O. 016 0.016 O. 017 0 .018 0 .019 0.022 0.023 0 . 0 2 3 0.023 0.025 0.027• 0:027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027
0 • ! •
Tab le B4.d
C o m p a r i s o n o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r Trea tment Groups For Age Less Than 25 Years Using The Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Acc iden t
O,OOS 0 ,008 O, OO8 0.010 0,010 0,011 0,.011 O, 012 0,013 0,013 0.:013 0.014 0.014 0.016 0.016 0L016 0.016 0.016 .0.016 O. 016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016
) l I ~"
I
I
Table BS.d
Comparison o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T rea tmen t Groups For Age L e s s T h a n .25 Years , t h e Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : . F i r s t DUI or Reck les s Dr iv ing Of f en s e
• 0 .7316 O. 7234 0 . 7 2 3 4 0 .7008 O. 7008 O. 7008 O. 70O8 0 .7008
0 . 7 0 0 8 0.7OO8 O.7OO8 0 .7008
SE ~of Cumul Surv- i v i n g 0.009 0.012 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.018 0.019 0. 020 0.021 0.021 0.022 0 .023 O. 023 O. 024 O.O25 O. 026 O. 026 0.029 0.029 0,029 0.029 o o29 0. 029 O. 029 0. 029 0. 029
cum ul P r o p n Surv At End 0.9668 0.93.05 0.894.7 0.8598 0.8427 0.;81.16 0.7949, 0,7766 0.7630 0.7630 0 . 7 5 4 8 0.7502 0.7396 0.7271 0 .7200 0,7120 0 . 7 1 2 0 0 .6899 01.6770 0 ,6770 0 .6770 0 . 6 7 7 0 0 .6770 0 .6770 0 .6770 0 .6770
SE o f Cumul S u r v - i v i n g O. 008 0.012 0 014 0 016 0,017 0 017 0 020 0 021 0 021 0.021 0 . 0 2 2 0.022 O. 023 O. 024 0 .025 0 .026 0 .026 0 .030 O. 032 0 .032 0 .032 0 .032 O. 032 0 .032 0.032 0 .032
0.009 0.013 O. 014 0..016 0.017 0.018 0.019 O. 020 0.021 0.021 0.022 0.023 O. 02~ 0 ~ 026 O. 026 O. 026 0.026 O. 028 0.033 0.033 0.033 O. 033 01;033 0.033 0.033 0.033
6 '
. . . : . . .
" !
D s |
t , q
Tab le B6.d
Comparison o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Groups f o r Age L e s s T h a n 25 Y e a r s , . Us ing t h e hee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e
O v e r a l l Compar ison
Group Name
Control Home S tudy I n - C l a s s
Statistic 0.332
T o t a l N UNCEN
475 104 • 484 111 475 109
D.F.
CEN
371 373 366
2 Prob.
PCT CEN
78.11 77.07 77.05
0.8469 ,NS
Mean S c o r e
11.215 -7 .O351 -4 . 0463
Pairwise Compar ison
Group Name
Control Home Study
Pairwise Comparison
Group Name
C o n t r o l I n - C l a s s
Pairwise Comparison
S t a t i s t i c 0 .288
T o t a l N UNCEN
475 104 484 iii
Statistic 0.205
Total N UNCEN
475 104 475 109
Statistic 0.0008
D.F. 1 Prob.
CEN PCT CEN
371 78.11 373 77.07
D.F. 1 P rob .
CEN PCT CEN
371 78.11 366 77.05
D.F. 1 Prob.
0.5913.NS
Mean Score
6.1095 -5.9959
0.6507,NS
Mean Score
5.1053 -5.1053
0.9266,NS
Group Name
Home Study In-Class
T o t a l N UNCEN
484 IIi 475 109
CEN PCT CEN
373 77.07 366 77.05
Mean Sco re
-1.0393 1.0589
%:
Intvl Start Time (Days)
C o n t r o l Group
Number E n t r n g T h i s In>w1
T a b l e B7.a .
Survival Data For Age
Number Number Wdrawn Exposd During t o I n t v l R i sk
;0 ,9293 0.9293 0.9293 0.9293 0.9293 O. 9293 0:9293
• 6.9293 O. 9293
7
0.003 0 .004 o,oos O. 006
0 . 0 0 6 O, 0O7 o. oo7 0,007 0 . 0 0 8 0.008 O. 009 0.010 o. o lo 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.011 o.012 0.012 0,012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0 .0 t2
I • 9
Table BS.d
Comparison of F i r s t Offender Treatment Groups For Age 25 Years or Older , U s i n g the Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t DUI or Reckless Driving Of fense ,
0.8769 O. 8644 0.8575 0.8425 O. 8344 ~0.8225 0,8123
0 .8084 0.8040 0.7940 0.7882 O. 7882
• O. 7801 0.7801
0 .7801 0 .7801 0.7801 0.7801 0.7801
O. 005 0.007 O. 008 O. O09 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.01.3 0;014 0.015 0,015 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.019 O. 020 O. 020 O, 021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021
I
I x h
I
' r ab te B91d
Comparison ofFirst Offender Treatment Groups for Age 25 Years or Older, Using the Lee ,Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R O f f e n s e
Comparison of F i r s t O f f e n d e r Trea tmen t Groups For S o c i a l D r i n k e r s , Using t h e Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Acc iden t
.0.9686. 0 .9686 0:. 9686 O. 9686 o.9686 0.9686 0.9686 0.9596 0.9596 • O. 9342
' 0. 9342 0.9342 O. 9342 0 . ,9342
O.9342 • O. 9342 O. 9342 O. 9342 O, 9342 0.9342 0,9342
SE o f Cumul Surv- i v i n g 0.004 • 0.006 . • 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.011 O. 011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.022 0.022 O. 022 O. 022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0 . 0 2 2 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022
L ̧ A G .
/- jJ
I
t#4
04
Home Study
Table B l l . b
Group Survival Data for Social Drinkers First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense
O f f e n d e r T r e a t m e n t Groups For H i d r a n g e P r o b l e m D r i n k e r s , t h e Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t A c c i d e n t
Cumul Propn Su~r - At End 0.9887 0.9771 0.970S O. 9636 0.9593 0.9517 O. 9434 0.9398 O. 9357 0.9311 0.9237 0.9183 0,9153 0.9153 0.9114 O. 9070 O. 9070 O. 9070
0 . 9 0 7 0 O. 9070 O. 9070 O. 9070 O. 9070 O. 9070 0.9070
O. 9070
/
SE o f cumul Surv i v i n g O. 004 0.005 O. 006 0.007 O. 007 0.008 O. 009 O. 009 O. 009 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.012 O. 012 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
0.9914 O. 9828 O. 9764 O. 9645 0 .9617 0 .9544 O. 9497 O. 9497 O. 94 77
- O. 9456 O. 9410 0 . 9 3 6 0 O. 9332 O. 9268 O. 9268 O. 9268 0 .9268
O . 9268 O. 9268 0 .9268 0 .9268 O. 9268 O. 9268 O. 9268 O. 9268
0 . 9 2 6 8
SE o f Cumul Surv- i v i n ~ 0 .003 O. 005 O. 005 0,0.07 0 ,007 0 .008 0.008 0.008 0 .008 0 .008 O, 009 0.010 0,010 0.011 0..011 O . O l l 0 , O l l 0.011 O. O11 O. 011 0'011 0.011 0.011 0.011 O. 011 0.011
. , ..
• • • qF
Table B14.d
Comparison of F i r s t Offender Treatment Groups f o r M i d - r a n g e Problem Dr inker s , Uslng the Lee-Desu Stat ist ic: First DUI or Reckless Driving Offense
I
4~
I
Overal l Comparison
Group .Name
Control Home Study In-Class
Pairwise Comparison
Group Name
Control Home Study
Pa i rw i se Comparison
Group Name
Control In-Class
Pairwise Comparison
Group Name
Home Study In-Class
S t a t i s t i c
T o t a l N ,
798 829 820
Statisti c N
Total N :-
798 • 829
S t a t i s t i c N
Total N
798 820
Stat is t ic N
Total. N
829 82O
2.080
Uncen
55 43 47
2.037
Uncen
55 43
0. 781
Uncen
55 47
O.282
Uncen
43 47
D.F.
Cen
743 786 773
D.F.
Cen
743 786
D.F.
Cen
743 773
D.F.
Cen
786 773
2 Prob. 0.35~4,NS
Pct Cen Mean Score
93.i l -19.323 9 4 . 8 1 15,567 94.27 3.0671
I Prob. 0.1535,N5
Pct Cen Mean Score
93.11 -11.825 94.81 11.382
1 Prob -0.3769,NS
Pct Cen Mean Score
93.11 -7.4987 94.27 7.2976
1 •Prob.• 0.5955,NS
Pct Cen Mean Score
94.81 4.1846 94.27 -4.2305
I n t v l S t a r t Time (Days)
Control
,Number E n t r n g
T h i s I n t v l
Table B1S.a
Group S u r v i v a l Data For Midrange Problem D r i n k e r s : V i o l a t i o n o r Any A/R Of fense
o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r : T r e a t m e n t Groups For Midrange P rob l em D r i n k e r s , Us ing t h e L e e - D e s u S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Moving Violation or Any A/R O f f e n s e
Comparison o f F i r s t O f f e n d e r Trea tment G r o u p s F o r Seve re Problem D r i n k e r s , Using the Leo-Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Acc iden t
O v e r a l l Compar.lson S t a t i s t i c 1 9 8 2 D.F. 2 Prob.
0.011 0.014 0.014 0.017 0.019 O. 019 0.021 O. 023 O. 024 0.024 O. O24 0.024 O. 024 O. 024 O. 024 O. 024 O. 024 O. 024 0.024 O. 024 0.024 0.024 O. 024 0.024 0.024
I n t v l s t a r t Time.. (Days)
070
Home
Number Entrng This Intvl.
Study Group - First
Number Wdrawn Druing I n t v l
Table B17.b
S u r v i v a l Data For Severe Problem DUI or Reckless Driving Offense
Propn Termi- n a t i n g 0 .0047 O. 0146 0.0 0 .0055 0 . 0 1 1 6 0.0190 O. 0071 0.0154 O. 0088 O. 0098 0.0104 O. 0114 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.O 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 7 7 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 o~o
SE o f Cumul Surv- zv lng O. 005 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.017 0.018 0.020 0.022 0.023 0.025 0.027 0.027 O.O27 0.027 0.027 0 027 0 030 0 030 0 030 0 030 0 030
o 030 O. 030 0.030 0.030
Table B17.d
Comparison of F i r s t Of fender Trea tment Groups f o r Severe Problem D r i n k e r s , Using the Lee~Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t DUI or Reckless Driving Offense
O. 002 O. 003 O. 004 O. 005 0.005 O.OOS O. 006 O. 006 O. 006 O. 007 O. 007 O. 008 0.008 0.009 O. 009 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 O, 012 0:012
0.002 0.003 O. 004 O. 004 0.004 0.005 O. OO5 0.005 0. 005 0 .005 0 .006 0 .006 0 .006 0 .006 0.007 o. 007 O.OO7 0.007 0 . 0 0 8 0.008 0.008 O. 008 0.008 0 .008 0.008 0 .008
T a b l e C2.c
Comparison, of . Moni to r ing L e t t e r a n d N o Mon i to r ing L e t t e r Groups, Using the Lee-Desu S : t a t i s t i c : F i r s t DUI or Reck le s s Dr iv ing O f f e n s e
! Overall Comparison Statistic
Group Name Total N
Monitoring Letters 1926 No Monitoring L e t t e r s ' 1939
C l i e n t s Not R e c e i v i n g Q u a r t e r l y b i o n i t o r i n g L e t t e r s : Moving V i o l a t i o n or Any A/R O f f e n s e
I n t v l Number Number Number Number S t a r t En t rng Wdrawn Exposd o f Propn Time This During t o Termfll Termin- (Days) Intvl Intvl Risk Events ating
Comparison o f Moni to r ing L e t t e r and No Mon i to r i ng L e t t e r Groups Osing t h e Lee-Desu S t a t i s t i c : F i r s t Moving V i o l a t i o n or Any A/R O f f e n s e .
t
I
Overall Comparison Statistic "
Group Name Total N
Monitoring Letters 1926 No Moni to r ing L e t t e r s 1939:
O. 008 o :009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011
T a b l e C 6 . c
Comparison of Follow-Up and No Follow-Up Groups, Using the Lee-Desu Statistic: .. ... Moving Violation or Any A/R Offense
F i r s t
I
O0 %aq I
Overall Comparison
Group Name
Follow-Up Interviews No Follow-Up Interviews
Statistic
Total N
1276 1673
i~370
Uncen.
142 162 "
D°F.
Cen
1134
1 S l l
1 . Prob,
Pct Cen
88.87 90.32
0.2418, NS
Mean Score
-19.241 14.67S
-/
%. , .i.,
APPENDIX D
Education Program Objectives
Note: The specific knowledge and attitude change objectives were identical for both home study and in-class education programs. This Appendix lists the objectives accord- ing to their order of presentation in the in-class education program. In the home study program the same objectives were pre- sented in approximately the same order but - the material was divided into seven chapters.
- 1 8 4 -
EDUCATION PROGRAM OBJECTIVES . . . .
SESSION 1:
Knowledge Students will be able to identify:
i. And define host liability.
2. Aspects of California law which relate to driving under • the influence (e.g. legal penalties; Implied Consent Law; presumed blood alcohol limits; • concept of "impairment" tests available for measuring BAL).
3. The relationship between alcohol consumption and ......... traffic accidents. '
4. Specific facts about alcohol--role in society; metabolism; food Val~ue; being a drug.
5. Factors which will affect blood alcohol level.
Attitude -- Students will feel that: : :
6Theyweren0tdriying s~fely at:the time of their
DUI arrest.
7. Their arrest for DUI was fair.
8. California drinking driving laws are fair and
necessary.
ESSION 2: •
Knowledge -- Studentswill be able to identify:
i. ~Physlol0gical effects of alcoholas these relate to
the driving task.
: . . . . . 2. ~ ' P s y c h 6 i o g i c a l e f f e c t s o f a l c o h o l - a s t h e s e r e l a t e t o
t h e d r i v i n g t a s k .
3. F a c t o r s w h i c h i n f l u e n c e t h e e f f e c t s o f a g i v e n BAL 5 n ' a n £ n ~ i v i d u a l ( e . g . s t r e s ' s ; e x p e r i e n c e ; f a t i g u e ) .
4. DUI alternatives.
Attitude -- Students will:
S. Feel the responsibility for their DUI behavior.
6. Feel that DUI is undesirable behavior. K
Behavior -- ' :
7. Students will decide that they do not want to be arrested again for DUI.
_185_ ~
SESSION 3:
Knowledge -- Students will be able to identify:
i. Alcoholism as a disease, using the Jellinek model.
2. Facts about problem drinkers and alcoholics (e.g. : heredity; withdrawal and D.T.'s; blackouts).
3. Steps in the recovery process from alcoholism including detoxification and AA
Attitude -- Students will feel
~4.
~S .
.
That they have a problem with alcohol, in their own life, with reference to problem drinking.
Feel the extent to which theirdrinking behavior is affected by their family and assoCiates~
Decide what positive and negative outcomes are associated with their drinking.
7. Begin to consider alternatives that can lead to a personal action plan to avoid future DUI behavior.
SESSION 4:
Knowledg e --
i. Students will be able to identify the five areas of personal Change relating to drinking-driving behavior.
Attitude -- Students will:
2. Feel that planning ahead to avoid a DUI incident is a good idea. : ,
3. Feel that avoidance of future DUI is under their control.
Behavior --
4 Students will develop an individual action plan to avoid future incidences of drinking driving.
*Specific for Problem Drinkers. **Not Directional.
-186-
APPENDIX E
Quarterly MonitoringLetter and Content Analysis
- 1 8 7 -
C O U N T Y OF S A C R A M E N T O H E A L T H D E P A R T M E N T R O N A L D L. USHER. D IRECTOR
OFFICE OF ALCOHOLISM
L A U R E N C E R. V A L T E R Z A A L C O H O L I S M P R O G R A M A D M I N I S T R A T O R
E A R L D. J A C K DEPUTY FOR A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 713 9th Street " •
SAC~tAMENTO, C A L I F O R N I A 95814
(916) 440-6510
CDUI PROJECT (COMPREHENSIVE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL TREATMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT) LEWIS A... D A V I S , DI RECTOR 708 - lOth STREET, SUITES 240 & 250 s A c R A M E N T O , C A L I F O R N I A 95814 T E L E P H O N E : (916) 446-5048 "
., .'
-DearClient:
Because of your arrest for driving under the influence Of alcohol, you have become a.CDUI (Comprehensive Driving Under the Influence).Project client and your.case will be under our observation during your • two-yearprobationary period. We will reveiw your case periodically and remind you of the condi- tions of your probation, with the hope .that you will successfully avoid any further trouble ..
You may have been assigned to participate in three personal interviews Con- ducted by the CDUI follow-up counselors. If you were assigned, your partici- pation is required. You are also required to drive safely and soberly at all times.
Please understand that the Court will not be as lenient if you are arrested again, particularly if you are still on probation. Take a moment and think about your past arrest andcourt experience. Is another DUI worth the time, the money, and the possible loss of your driving privilege?
Remember that half of all trafficfatalities are directly related to alcohol. Be careful and be aware of how much you drink when you drive. Won't youhelp make our highways safer? we don't want to read about yo u in the newspapers!
Sincerely, ".
M o n i t o r i n g and Compl iance Unit. 440-5958
-188-
I
Oo
I
I ..
.. .. i ,'i.
QUARTERLY MONITORING LETTER CONTENT ANALYSIS,
Subjec~ Content and Phraseology
Statement..of conditions resulting from index arrest: •
a) recipient became a CDUI Project client b) recipient was placed on probation for two years c) .... recipient will remain under our observation for
• theduration of.the probationary period
-. P u r p o s e , . . : '
Re~nfOr~co the causal relationship between client's drinking-driving activities and participation in the CDUI Project. (Arrest was Used instead of conviction because of reductions~t0 Reckless Driving.)
• Remindthe client that a two-year probationary period was imposed by the Court. ,
• Indicate that CDUI Project participation is a -condition of probation, and suggeSt that the CDUI Project is responsible for client's behavior throughout the probationary period. Thus establishing a logical and legitimate basis for periodic case reviews and follow-up interviews after successful completionof education/treatment programs.
2.
.
Statement of intention to review Client's case periodically.
Explanation of reason for sening a letteri
Remindclient of conditions of probation (done in conjunction with the periodic case reviews), with the hope that client will successfully avoid any further trouble.
• Reinforce the idea that tlle client is being monitored Calbeit indirectly) at regular intervals. Someone is giving his/her case individual atten, tion the clienthas not been lost in the system.
Associate the receipt of a monitoring letter with a review of the client's case. Establishthe fact that the client will be receiv- ing several letters, one with each periodic case
review. • Indicate that the purpose for sending letters is a periodic reminder of the conditions of probation.
• Imply how the Project exPects the client to use the information - by being aware of the proba- tionary conditions the Client will be better able to avoid violating those conditions and thus further trouble ~
I
I
.
QUARTERLY MONITORING LETTER CONTENT. ANALYSIS (Cont'd)
Subject Content and Phraseology
Statement of probationary conditions: .
a) Participation in follow-up interviews (three personal interviews with counselors) is required
b). Driving~safely and soberly at all times is r e q u i r e d .
5. Warning of possible consequences of another arrest (CoUrt will not be as lenient next time),.
Ask client to think about past arrest and court experience (is another DUI worth the 10ss of time, money, and possibly drivingprivi!ege).
7, Statement of proportion of all traffic fatalities related to alcohol.
: 6.
b) C)
Statements ofconcern for client's personal safety and well-belng, and client's responsibility for the Safety of others:
a) Be careful andbeaware of how much you drink when you drive. H e l p make o u r ~ h ~ g h w a y s s a f e r , Don't become a fatality statistic (we don't want to read about you in the newspapers)
.
P u r p o s e
Indicate that if the client was assigned to follow-up interviews, his/her participation is mandatory. Emphasis on personal interviews con- ducted by counselors to connote individual attention and concern for the client's progress. Specifica- tion of.three interviews to define:the extent of client's involvement and obligation.
Reinforce the idea that another offense will result in the imposition of more severe sanctions. A low threat warning of possible consequences also suggests our quasi-probationary function and our concern that the client not experience additional legal problems.
• Urge the ¢.lient to recall the unpleasant aspects of his/her prior arrest and conviction, with the intention of increasing the client's motivation to avoid another similarly Unpleasant experience.
• Reinforce the relationship between drinkingydriving and fatal traffic accidents.
• Reinforce the idea that the client is responsible for his/her own drinking and driving behavior, and that the client can control this behavior (and its consequences) but this control requires as a pre- requisite an awareness of the amount of alcohol consumed. Reinforce the idea that the client is responsible for the safety of others on the highways. Close letter with an expression of our concern for the client's life which is being endangered by drinking and driving.
APPENDIX F
CDUI Project Diagnostic Interview:Protocol
-191~(~ ~._
Rev: 9-01-78
CDUI INTAKE I,~!TERVIE!,'W
COUNSELOR
START TIME:
END TI ME :
p ~P- CLI E?,'T !-1,~t~E
CDUI ~3:\ -192-
CDUI INTAKE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Scale 1
I . DEMOGRAPItlC PROFILE AN[) SOCIAL/DIPLOYHENT PROBLEbIS
.
.
How far have you gone in school?
1. None
. 2. 7 , g r a d e s o r l e s s
3. 8-11 g r a d e s
4. 12 g r a d e s o r d i p l o m a
6. 1-3 years c o l l e g e
7. 4 y e a r s c o l l e g e
8. p o s t , g r a d u a t e work
9. n o t kno~m
S. Comnle t ed b u s [ n e s s . o r t r a d e s c h o o l ( 1 - 2 ) , e a r s )
a . E n t e r h i g h e s t g r a d e c o m n l e t e d :
Are you c u r r e n t i y employed? "
a . ( I f Yes ) : What i s y o u r o r e s e n t j o b ? T i t l e p l u s d e s c r i p t i o n :
3 . H a s t h e r e r e c e n t l y b e e n a c h a n g e i n your: r e s p o n s i - b i l i t i e s a t w o r k o r in ) 'our w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s ? (For e x a m p l e , t r a n s f e r , . s h i f t c h a n g e , p r o m o t i o n , e t c . ) . . . . . . .
.
.
t tave you r e c e n t l y had any t r o u b l e w i t h y o u r s u p e r v i s o r s , c o - w o r k e r s o r p e r s o n n e l u n d e r y o u r s u p e r v i s i o n ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .
• H a s d r i n k i n g e v e r c o n t r i b u t e d t o p r o b l e m s a t work o r t h e l o s s o f a j o b ? . " ' Y N
6. What isyour present marital status?
1. S i n g ! e ( n e v e r m a r r i e d )
2. N a r r i e d
3. D i v o r c e d
4. S e p a r a t e d
S. W i d o w e d
.
.
.
HOW man)" times }lave yo u been married? # ( I f never marri6d record ,zero)
L
Have ~::o~irecently been separated from YoUr spouse or serio~asly talked about separation? ........................
}t~s drinking interfered ::' " . ~z t , . a n y m a r r t a g e p l a n s .o r o t h e r s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ? Y N "
-193-
Scale 2
Y N
Y N o r N/A
YNor N/A
Y N o r N/A
10.
11,
.
I I .
What was y o u r a v e r a g e month ly income f o r t h e l a s t t w e l v e months?
I3 .
a . I n d i v i d u a l Income $ per month
b. Family Income $ per month
tlow many c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s a r e l i v i n ~ on tt~iS income? -# ( i n c l u d i n g c i i e n t )
• . ' . .
I~hat i s you r p r i m a r y s o u r c e o f f a m i I y income?
6. O t h e r R e t i r e m e n t I . Wages
2, Supp lemen ta l S e c u r i t y ___7. O the r D i s a b i l i t y . Income
3. Unemployment Compensat ion 8. Fami ly i
4. S o c i a l S e c u r i t y B e n e f i t s ,__9. M i l i t a r y R e t i r e m e n t
5. p u b l i c A s s i s t a n c e 1 0 . O t h e r
( i n c l u d i n g SSI) ' i l . N o n e R e p o r t e d
ltave you r e c e n t l y been c o n c e r n e d about f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e m s ? (For example , p a y i n g f o r r e c e n t p u r c h a s e s , r e n t or m o r t g a g e payments , med i ca l b i l l s , e t c . ) '
ARRESTS AND DRIVING BEI~VIOR
When d id t h e a r r e s t o c c u r which l e d to your r e f e r r a i h e r e ? ( I f c l i e n t i s be ing r e f e r r e d f o r more t h a n one a r r e s t , r e c o r d t h e d a t e o f the most r e c e n t a r r e s t b e l o w . )
14. Have you ever been • arrested for an offense other than the arrest of
mn day yr (If Yes)" Ask client to describe the offenses and
record the number of times arrested for each offense category below.
(If No): Put zero in each offense category belowl
a. Numberof Prior Arrests for DUI, ................... #
b. Number of Arrests for 'Drunk and Disorderly or
Public Intoxication ................................ #
c. Number of Prior Arrests for Reckless D r i v i n g " " - # . . . . . . . . . .
d. Number of Crimes In,:01v~ng Property.....~
e. Nunber of Crimes Involving Assault ...... #
,f . Number of Crimes I n v o l v i n g sex., . . . . . . . . #
g. Number o f Crimes I n v o l v i n g Other [!rugs.# . . . .
h. Number o f O the r Crimes and T r a f f i c V i o l a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . # .__
i+
i +
- 1 9 4 -
I
I
YN
iS
4 ! . .
f
I I I .
S c a l e 1
i . t lad t h e c l i e n t b e e n d r i n k i n g when h e / s h e was a r r e s t e d f o r R e c k l e s s D r i v i n g ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N o r
j~, l t a d t h e c l ~ i e n t b e e n d r i n k i n g when h e / s h e w a s " N/A a r r e s t e d f o r a n y o f t h e n o n t r a f f i c o f f e n s e s o r t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d • i n i t e m s d - h ? . . . . . . Y N o r
N/A
I 5 , was c l i e n t ' s ' i n d e x a r r e s t BAC .15 o r a b o v e ? . . . . i . . . . . . . Y N
A s k t h e f o l l o w i n g :
I 6 . W h i l e d r i v i n g h a v e y o u e v e r b e e n s t o p p e d b y p o l i c e b u t n o t a r r e s t e d , when you knew you had b e e n d r i n k i n g t o o m u c h ? Y N
PHYSICAL HEALTH
17. Are you experiencing any of the following health problems?
a . f e e l i n g t i r e d o r f a t i g u e d . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . Y N
b . w e i g h t l o s s o r i n a b i l i t y t o e a t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N
¢ . i n a b i l i t y t o c o n c e n t r a t e o r c o m p l e t e t a s k s . . . . . . . . . Y N
d . d i f f i c u l t y s l e e p i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N
18 . H a v e y o u e v e r had u l c e r s • o r s t o m a c h p r o b I e m s . . . . . . ; . . . . Y N )
19 . H a v e y o u e v e r had l i v e r p r o b l e m s ? ( e . g . , f a t t y , • l i v e r o r c i r r h o s i s ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . : : Y N
20 . Have y o u e v e r b e e n t o l d by a d o c t o r t h a t d r i n k i n g i s i n j u r i n g y o u r h e a l t h ? . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N
• " . [ i
2 I . H a v e y o u r e c e n t l y b e e n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l h e a l t h o f a n y c l o s e r e i a t i v e o r c I o s e f r i e n d ? . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22 . Have y o u r e c e n t l y l o s t a c l o s e r e l a t i v e o r c l o s e f r i e n d b y d e a t h ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .
I V . . DRINKING PATTERNS AND PRO;~I.t%!S
23 . What is: y o u r d e f i n i t i o n oF a s o c i a l d r i n k e r ?
¢,,, " i v c Does c l i e n t ' s d e f i n i t i o n . u# . . , e s t e x c e s s d r ink in :~ , p a t t e r n s " Y N
24. Does d r i n k i n g Seem t o e a s e .vc'u)" p e r s o n i ! p, . 'o , , le .~ ' " * . . . . . . . Y:N
25 Does a d r i n k o r two o i v e >c,t~ e n e r g y t o n e t s t a r t e d ? Y N • ~ • . . , • - • -
-195--
Scale 2
Y N
Y N
26 ' Do you e v e r d r i n k to f e e l more a t e a s e a r o u n d p e o p l e ? . . Y N
27.
2 8 ,
29.
30.
3 1 .
32.
t tave y o u e v e r t ~ o u g h t abou t c u t t i n g down o,l d r i n k i n g ? . . Y N 2"
Have a n y o f y o u r f r i e n d s o r members o f y o u r f a l a i l v s u g g e s t e d t h a t you wa tch o r c u t down on y o u r d r i n k i n g ? . Y N
Do you u s u a l l y have s o m e t h i n g t o d r i n k e v e r y d a y ? . . . . . . Y N
How many d r i n k s can you h a n d l e and s t i l l d r i v e w e l l ? . . . # 4*
Do you u a u a l l y d r i n k f o u r o r more d r i n k s when you do d r i n k ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • Y N
Have you e v e r f e l t bad or g u i l t y abou t d r i n k i n g ? . Y N
33. Have you e v e r f e l t t h a t you r e a l l y w a n t , n e e d , o r d e s e r v e a d r i n k ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V N
34. l t a v e you gone on a d r i n k i n g Spree in t h e l a s t f i v e y e a r s ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N
35. Have you e v e r f o u n d t h a t you c a n n o t r emember o r w o n d e r : w h a t y o u d i d t h e n i g h t b e f o r e when you were d r i n k i n g ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N
A f t e r d r i n k i n g t h e n i g h t b e f o r e ; have y o u e v e r d e c i d e d n o t t o g o t o work t h e n e x t m o r n i n g ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y.N
Do you f e e l q u a r r e l s o m e or become a n g r y a f t e r you h a v e had s e v e r a l d r i n k s ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N
Have you b e e n t o l d you were rowdy or n o i s y when you had t o o much t o d r i n k ? . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . ; . . 7 . . . Y N
39. Have you e v e r d e s t r o y e d p r o p e r t Y o r g o t t e n i n t o a p h y s i c a l f i g h t when you were d r i n k i n g ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C Y N
40 . Have you e v e r p a r t i c i p a t e d i n an aCcohol t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m b e f o r e ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N
36.
37.
38.
41. Do you f e e ! you h a v e a p r o b l e m w i t h a l c o h o l a t t h i s t ime?. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . Y N