OFFENDER-SPECIFIC TREATMENT FOR DRUNK DRIVING. G. O. Windham, Ph.D.*, and J. W. Landrum, M. A.* SYNOPSIS

Transcription

1 OFFENDER-SPECIFIC TREATMENT FOR DRUNK DRIVING G. O. Windham, Ph.D.*, and J. W. Landrum, M. A.* SYNOPSIS Selected literature is examined on programs designed to intervene in drunk-driving behavior. Data on a rigorously controlled experiment with probation as the key countermeasure are reported. Results are consistent with those of previous experiments for the total sample. However, an examination of findings for sub-samples reveals that some intervention strategies are effective when the characteristics of offenders are controlled. Suggestions are made for offender-specific treatment strategies. INTRODUCTION Getting the drunk off the road is currently considered a high priority social issue by policy makers in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. Presently within the United States, no social problem generates more public outrage than the issue of drunk driving. Policies to deal with the drunk driver are being made at the national level that appear to be definite and measures are being undertaken that appear to attack decisively the problem. Among others, the latter include severe punitive measures such as incarceration, excessive fines, no plea bargaining, and revocation of the offender's operator's license. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has provided grants to states that have incorporated these punitive measures into their implied consent laws; it appears that if provisions of the new law are applied at the local level no drunk driver will be able to escape the wrath of the hostile enforcement and judicial agencies. However, even a superficial analysis of the history of attitudes in the United States toward alcohol use and drinking and driving casts some doubt on how definitive the current policy is and how effect the punitive measures will be in the long run. * Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762, U.S.A. 1545

2 In general, the attitudes toward drinking and driving in the United States have been marked by ambivalence and controversy. While we, as a nation, deplore the loss of 50,000 lives per year as a result of drunk drivers, until quite recently no national effort was directed toward the drunk driving problem. There are several reasons for this: First, the use of beverage alcohol is statistically normal behavior in the United States. Second, the use of an automobile is both statistically and behaviorally normal. Third, even though problems associated with alcohol abuse constitute the major problem for local law enforcement officials, they have not generally been considered problems for national sanction. Fourth, driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is apparently considered a minor offense on the local level as shown by the number of cases reduced to reckless driving or some similar minor offense either before or after the case goes to court. With respect to alcohol abuse, a national survey in 1970 showed that only 22% of the adult population surveyed could be classified as abstinent (Cahalan, 1970; p. 2). Likewise, the use of beverage alcohol by adolescents, although proscribed in most cases, is apparently quite high and is increasing at an alarming rate. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) examined 120 surveys on alcohol use by teenagers in the United States conducted between (NIAAA, 1980; p. 35). They found that the number of teenagers who reported drinking to intoxication increased from 19% in 1966 to 45% in Of this number 10% in 1966 indicated that they had been intoxicated as often as once a month in the previous year and by 1975 the figure had increased to 19%. Also in a national study conducted by the Center for Study of Social Behavior, Research Triangle Institute in 1975 (1975; p. 146), 80% of adolescents reported that they use alcohol. More than half reported drinking at least once a month; 40% acknowledged drinking 3-4 days per month; 23% said they drank at least once a week; and 2% reported that they drink daily. This situation becomes more problematic when attitudes toward the automobile are considered. The adult who does not operate an automobile in the United States is, indeed, considered a deviant, and one of the first adult behaviors that teenagers want to acquire is to drive a car and secure an operator's license. The fact that alcohol abuse is one of the major problems for local law enforcement agencies can be gleaned from the Uniform Crime Report published each year by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In 1979 this agency 1546

3 reported 1,17 2,000 arrests for drunkenness and an additional 1,324,000 for DUI (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1980). In 1980 the number of arrests for drunkenness decreased slightly but the number of arrests for DUI increased to 1,531,400 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1981). DUI arrests are the second highest in frequency of the FBI's list, of reported arrests each year; the combined DUI arid public drunkenness arrests account for about 25% of all arrests made by local law enforcement officials. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates the loss to society due to alcohol abuse at $42,000,000,000 per year (Department of Health, Education and Welfare, ]974). Finally, it is conservatively estimated that alcohol abuse while driving accounts for 50% of all traffic fatalities (Kielty, 1972; p. 10). In spite of these shocking figures, drunk driving apparently has not been considered a major offense by local courts as shown by the number of charges reduced to a lesser offense. In the State of Mississippi, for example, only about 50% of those who test. 10% BAC or above at the time of arrest ever enroll in the Mississippi Alcohol Safety Education Frogram (MASEP) which is mandatory for persons convicted of DUI (Mississippi Department of Public Safety, 1981; p. 85). The 1968 Highway Safety Report to the Congress got that body's attention insofar as the drinking/driving problem was concerned in the United States (NHTSA, 1968). As a result the Congress instructed NHTSA to develop programs to counteract the problems caused by abusive drinking and driving. Conseguently, NHTSA funded a number of demonstration projects which created a drinking/driving control system integrating the enforcement, judicial, and treatment functions. Thirty-five Alcohol Safety Action Programs (ASAP's) were funded and operated from 2 h to 5 years (NHTSA, 1979). This should have been the beginning of a program of prevention/intervention for the drunk-driving problem. However, there were many issues to be resolved before this was possible. For 70 years the courts in the United States had dealt with the drinking driver only with legal sanctions, such as jail, fines, and the suspension of driver's licenses. No data had been kept that would accurately measure the effectiveness of such sanctions, though from the number of accidents that were related to alcohol use, such sanctions appear to have been ineffective. To make matters even more difficult for the program planners, alcohol rehabilitation programs were not systematically in place and those that were had not traditionally dealt with the drinking-driving problem. 1547

4 The ASAP's were highly successful in establishing the drinking-driving control system that had been envisioned. However, this was about all they accomplished. Because of the scarcity of treatment programs, the failure to incorporate a rigorous experimental design, ana the absence of an effective record-keeping system, evaluation of the efffectiveness of the programs was impossible, except through gross rates of arrests and convictions. During 1975 NHTSA implemented the Short Term Rehabilitation Study (STR) which used an experimental design to test the effectiveness of various rehabilitation programs in 11 of the ASAP sites. In addition, a Life Activities Inventory (LAI) instrument was used to assess the effectiveness of treatment in attaining changes in drinking behavior other than rearrest for drinking-driving and accident involvement (Ellingstad et al., 1977). Findings from the STR's indicated that treatment programs for social drinkers had only a small positive effect as measured by recidivism rates and crash reduction, whereas treatment programs for problem drinkers were totally ineffective (Nichols et al., 1978). After the expenditure of over $100,000,000 of federal, state, and local funds on DUI control systems, NHTSA officials apparently decided that no system of prevention/intervention for the drinking-driving problem could be effective without tough punitive measures such as large fines and mandatory jail time. While preliminary reports on the effectiveness of the punitive measures are encouraging, the long-term impacts are uncertain. Some researchers have argued that the beneficial short-time impacts of such laws are due largely to increased publicity, and that drunk-driving rates can be expected to increase as public interest wanes and as drunk drivers learn through experience that the probability of apprehension is low (Ross, 1982; pp ). While stringent punitive measures may prove effective as DUI deterrents, particularly in the short-term, they are likely to be more effective among some groups than others. It is unlikely that any single approach or countermeasure will solve the drinking-driving problem, and more research is needed to identify additional alternatives. A large scale project which evaluated the effectiveness of probation and rehabilitation countermeasures in Mississippi, the 1548

5 Mississippi DUI Probation Follow-Up Project, found that drinking drivers are not a homogeneous population and that certain types of rehabilitation may be more effective for some kinds of offenders than for others (Landrum et al., 1981). The purpose of this paper is to examine some findings from the Mississippi Project and to suggest alternating approaches for the effective treatment of DUI offenders. METHODS The Mississippi DUI Probation Follow-Up Project was conducted in 11 medium sized towns with a combined population of 300,000 during the period from July 1, 1975 to July 31, 1981 by the Social Science Research Center (SSRC) at Mississippi State University. A similar project, with a similar design, was conducted in Memphis, Tennessee. The major purpose was to test the effectiveness of probation as a DUI countermeasure by itself and in combination with rehabilitation. By experimental design offenders were randomly assigned to rehabilitation, probation, rehabilitation and probation combined, or no treatment (control). Upon intake offenders were classified as problem or non-problem drinkers. The Mississippi Project used criteria developed in previous ASAP's together with a classification scheme developed by the SSRC to make the problem drinker/nonproblem drinker classification (Crowe, 1975; Filkins et al., 1974; Kerlan et al., 1971 (see Table 1). In addition, at the beginning of the project every fifth entry was administered the current status questionnaire of the Life Activities Inventory (LAI) upon entry and in the subsequent sixth and twelfth months. In order to assure a larger sample of LAI counterparts, a decision was made halfway through the project to assign every third problem drinker and every other non-problem drinker to the LAI sample (see Figure 1). During the last 4 months, all entries were assigned to the LAI subgroup. Rehabilitation for the non-problem drinkers consisted of an alcohol safety school consisting of 10 hours of instruction on alcohol and traffic safety during 4 weekly sessions. Problem drinkers attended 9 group therapy sessions conducted by community mental health centers. Probation consisted of 12 monthly meetings of 30 minutes each with a probation counselor. All participants were tracked for 24 months to determine the recidivism rates and crash involvement, the evaluation criteria. 1549

6 Table 1: Criteria for Classifying a DUI Offender as a Problem Drinker* Criteria 1) RAC of.20 or above on any offense. 2) Mortimer-Filkins Questionnaire score of 24 or higher. 3) Two or more previous DUI/DWI arrests. 4) Three or more public drunk arrests. 5) BAC of.15 or above on any offense and previous Dl DWI arrest. 6) BAC of.15 or above on any offense and public drur arrest. 7) Previous DUI/DWI and previous public drunk an t.. 8) Mortimer-Filkins score of 16 or above and BAC of. j or above on any offense. 9) Mortimer-Filkins score of 16 or above and previous^dui/dwi arrest. 10) Mortimer-Filkins score of 16 or above and two public drunk arrests. * These criteria are somewhat more rigid than criteria used in previous studies to classify a person as a problem drinker. For example: (1) the original, rather than the revised (Filkins et al., 1973; Kerlan et al., 1971) Mortimer-Filkins cut-off scores for problem drinker classification were adopted (i.e., using 24 as definitive of, and 16 as presumptive evidence of, a drinking problem); (2) a single prior of DUI/DWI offense or a BAC of between.15 and.199? were used only in conjunction with another presumptive level criterion; and (3) the more conservative BAC level of.20 / was used rather than the.15% level that has been used in some court programs. 1550

7 A total of 5,096 offenders were subjects in the Mississippi Project. The classification by non-problem/problem drinking category was 40% and 60%, respectively. Like the previous demonstration projects these studies failed to show a significant treatment effect for any of the treatments (Landrum et al., 1982). However, a specification of the data by personal and social characteristics of offenders did suggest that effective treatment programs might be designed around the characteristics of offenders. As expected, the rate of recidivism after 24 months of tracking was much higher among problem than non-problem drinkers; 34% and 18%, respectively. In addition, there were significantly more accidents, i- ries, and serious injuries among the former than among tns latter group. These data provide strong evidence of t ie validity of the drinker classification scheme. Moreover, they show that we must reconsider treatment pro? ams for DUI offenders in order to formulate an effective p ;vention/intervention strategy. - f p QNftr, 31. RESULTS The specification of data by social and personal factors utiliv,-d a statistical technique for computer analysis called the Automatic Interaction Detector (AID 3). Briefly, the principle of least squares is followed and the focus is on power in reducing error. The procedure involves starting with the most stable and dependable finding and working down to the least dependable and powerful findings on smaller subgroups. The process differs from step-wise regression in that it measures the interaction effects of each predictor on each subgroup rather than the entire data set. It does not assume linearity or additivity. Splits are mutually exclusive. The first structure search to be detailed included all 5,096 referrals of the project, examining the interactions between 17 separate predictor variables and the dependent measure which consisted of the mean number of rearrests occurring during the 24-month tracking of each individual following project referral. The predictor variables, which were entered, are as follows: age, education, employment status, race, family income, Index of Social Position, number of dependents, modality assignment, religion, marital status, Mortimer-Filkins questionnaire score, assignment to LAI, drinker group assignment, arrest BAC, and number of previous DUI and public drunk offenses. Not surprisingly, 1551

8 the initial split accounting for the greatest variance was made on the variable of previous DUI offenses, differentiating those individuals having one or more previous offenses from those who did not. Subsequent splits made on the subgroup of individuals having no previous D U I 1s indicated that within this group, individuals having been assigned to the non-problem drinker group exhibited lower recidivism than those assigned to the problem drinker group. Splits made on the problem drinker group indicate the high recidivism within this subgroup is associated with other types of previous public drunk or DUI offenses. Among those with no prior DUI arrest, a Mortimer-Filkins score of less than 12 was predictive of low recidivism. Among individuals having 3 or more previous DUI's, those assigned to modalities containing a rehabilitation component exhibited somewhat lower recidivism, unless they reported a separated or divorced marital status, in which case recidivism was extremely high. The high recidivism! exhibited by individuals assigned to modalities without the rehabilitation component was even more extreme for those individuals having 4 or more previous DUI's. An examination of the above search employing the entire referral sample suggested the following: 1) As might be expected, previous drinking related offenses, DUI's, and public drunk arrests are the best predictors of recidivism. The relationship of the number of DUI's to recidivism, for example, is apparently quite linear. 2) Complex interactions exist between variables related to the dependent measure which disallow a reduction of results to a simple description of the relationship of predictors to recidivism. Structure searches were also computed for problem and nonproblem drinker groups separately, since one might expect the relevant variables and interactions to differ for these 2 groups. The structure search of the problem drinker group employed the same variables as the search of total referrals detailed above. As with the total group of referrals, the prior arrests, especially for DUI, proved to be the best predictor of recidivism. Major subgroups isolated in the search differ mostly in terms of the number and types of prior arrests individuals had. The relatively 1552

9 few demographic variables for which splits occurred indicate minor interactions among these subgroups, sometimes in unexpected directions. For example: 1) For individuals who had no previous DUI or public drunk arrest (PD), an employment status of retired or disabled was associated with very low recidivism, contrary to usual patterns. 2) For individuals having 1-2 previous DUI's, 1 or more DUI's but no P D 's, affiliations with a religious body which is more tolerant regarding alcohol consumption was associated with somewhat lower recidivism. For those who also have had one or more P D 1s, the variable of age was found to interact, such that those younger individuals (born in 1945 or later) exhibited much higher rates than older individuals. 3) For individuals having 3 or more DUI's, a marital status of widowed, separated, or divorced was associated with very high recidivism. For those who were either single or married, the modality assignment interacted, such that individuals assigned to "rehab" conditions exhibited much lower recidivism rates than those assigned to "non-rehab" conditions. Total variance accounted for by this search within the problem drinker group was 9.2%. Tentative conclusions suggested by the data do not significantly differ from those made following the search computed on total referrals. The relative power of the prior arrest predictors, and the large proportion of individuals having some type of prior arrest, render the results of the 2 searches quite similar. Probably the search of greatest interest, then, was of the nonproblem drinker group. Since comparatively few of these individuals had previous arrests of any kind, the 3 types of prior arrests used in the above analyses were combined for this search to form one variable, "Prior." Other variables included were identical to those employed in earlier searchers. The number of nonproblem drinkers for whom information was complete was 1,647. The initial split occurred for Priors, differentiating those who had multiple Priors from those with 1 or none. For the latter group, a Mortimer-Filkins score of less than 8 was associated with very low recidivism. 1553

10 As would be expected, the majority of individuals included in this search did not have any prior arrests. Among this large subgroup, the variable which accounts for the greatest variance is race, with whites and "others" exhibiting lower recidivism rates than blacks. Because the subsequent patterns of splits significantly differ for the 2 racial groups, each is examined separately. For the white subgroup, the variables associated with lower average recidivism were: 1) affiliation with a religious group tolerant of alcohol; 2) assignment to the I.AI subsample; and 3) less than 30 years of age. Variables values associated with elevated recidivism rates by characteristics were: 1) Annual incomes less than $6,000; 2) Modality assignment to "rehab" conditions; and 3) Mortimer-Filkins score between 8 and 15. For blacks, the variable values associated with higher recidivism by characteristics were: 1) Separated or divorced marital status; and 2) Lack of religious affiliation. In addition, several interactions occur within the age variable for the black subgroup, namely: 1) Older blacks (birth year before 1935) exhibited the highest recidivism rates especially if incomes were less than $6,000; 2) Those born from 1935 to 1955 (approximately years of age) exhibited the lowest recidivism; and 3) Young blacks (birth year after 1935) exhibited lower rates when assigned to the LAI subsample. Finally, those individuals having 1 previous arrest were found to exhibit higher recidivism if they had no dependents or if they were born earlie'r than Those individuals having more than 1 Prior exhibited very high recividism. One additional and unanticipated finding was uncovered in this project. The variable which accounted for the largest reduction in recidivism was the administration of the current status questionnaire of the Life Activities Inventory. This is a multi-dimensional measure of adjustment in various areas of one's life theoretically affected by drinking problems (Ellingstad & Struckman-Johnson, 1977; pp ). Throughout the first 1554

11 24 months of the project intake every fifth person in each of the experimental conditions was randomly assigned to the LAI subgroup. Later in the project this ratio was changed and the data reported here cover only the first 24 months of intake on the first 3,040 entries. The questionnaire was administered every 6 months by a probation counselor assigned to the project. The analysis consisted of an examination of recidivism vs non-recidivism for both problems and nonproblem drinkers taking into account total number of rearrests. Twenty-six percent had more than one rearrest, yet a large and significant reduction in rearrests appeared across all 4 experimental conditions for nonproblem drinkers in the LAI group as compared to the non-iai group. Also, among problem drinkers the LAI group had lower recidivism rates than their non-lai counterparts although the difference was not statistically significant. One important finding emerged when the relationship between LAI participation and recidivism was specified by other factors: namely, the treatment effect disappeared among those who had completed fewer than 9 years of formal education (Neff & Landrum, 1983). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The findings reported here are in agreement with findings from previous studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of treatment for DUI offenders: namely, none of the treatments evaluated thus far has shown a positive effect when gross rates of recividism and crash involvement are used as evaluation criteria. Moreover, there is little or no support for the specific deterrance hypothesis as a high percentage of the population is rearrested in a short period of time (Landrum et al., 1982). This casts doubt on the effectiveness of a policy of general deterrence based on stiff punitive measures such as those that have been advocated by NHTSA and adopted by many of the states. Additionally, Ross has examined the effect of general deterrance as a policy in preventing drunk driving in the Scandinavian countries and elsewhere. His conclusion is that there is no long-range permanent effect to this strategy and that the immediate effect is a result of publicity which lasts only so long as the drinking driver perceives an increased threat of detection (Ross, 1982; pp ). Does this mean then that the search for an effective program of prevention/intervention should be abandoned? If so, do we abandon the automobile or go back to the days of prohibition? It is unlikely that either will happen. The 1555

12 question then becomes: "Where do we go from here?" There are no definitive answers, of course. However, we think we can profit from past mistakes and that we will find acceptable cost-effective answers if we continue the search. This will require additional research and rigorous evaluation of treatment outcomes together with a continuing reexamination of the problem as evidence is accumulated. We must, first, look at what we know about the drinking-driving population and to examine past mistakes in evaluation efforts. We find immediately that the drinking-driving problem has been inadequately conceptualized and that treatment strategies have been poorly designed as a result. Two major assumptions were: 1) that a majority of drinking drivers were social or nonproblem drinkers; and 2) that there was some degree of homogeneity within the 2 large drinking-driving groups identified for treatment. In retrospect it appears that both of these assumptions are false. It may be that a majority of drinking drivers are in fact social drinkers or nonproblem drinkers. However, if this is the case the majority of nonproblem drinking drivers do not get arrested and hence do not get into the treatment system. In fact, approximately t.wo-thirds of offenders arrested in the Mississippi project were classified as problem drinkers and these results are not too dissimilar to those of other large projects funded by NHTSA. Second, the evidence from a large number of studies now shows that drinking drivers are not a homogenous group whether they are classified as problem or nonproblem drinkers (Donovan, Marlatt & Salzberg, 1983; Hart & Stewland, 1979; Horn & Wanberg, 1969; Salzberg & Klingberg, 1983; Snow & Cunningham, 1983; Snow & Lightsey, 1983; Steer, Fine & Sealer, In the early 1950's Jellinek suggested that persons who abuse alcohol do so in different ways and for different reasons and that an effective treatment program would need to take this into account (Jellinek, 1952). Recently, a number of researchers working in different treatment environments have developed procedures for identifying several types of alcohol abusers based on historical and current status items, and have evaluated the outcome of treatment when the focus is on symptomatology rather than a singular illness model (Hart & Stewland, 1979; Horn & Wanberg, 1969; Steer & Fine, 1979). The cumulative evidence from these studies is that treatment effectiveness can be significantly improved when this model of treatment is used. These studies suggest an effective treatment strategy can be formulated for the drunk driver if communities provide an 1556

13 infrastructure for treatment to occur. Unfortunately, many of the recently enacted laws which impose stiff penalities have not made a provision whereby the drunk driver can be forced to enter a long-term treatment program either on an outpatient or inpatient basis, nor have they provided for the cost of treatment by the offender or from government fund s. What do we do in the meantime? With respect to the nonproblem drinking-driver, Nichols et al. (1978) concluded that DUI schools had a small positive effect on social drinkers but none on problem drinkers, and that lecture-oriented schools with large class sizes may even have negative effects on the rearrest rates of problem drinkers. Two more rigorously controlled studies, the Memphis (Holden & Stewart, 1981) and Mississippi DUI Probation Follow-Up Projects, found rearrest rates for persons assigned to a control group to be almost identical to persons attending a DWI school. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between persons in a control group and any persons assigned to any rehabilitation strategies for either nonproblem or problem drinkers. Therefore, for the nonproblem drinker, programs of much longer duration and with much more depth must be developed. Probably, these programs should work from a behavior modification model and provide for several months of therapy on an outpatient basis. Laws which prescribe stiff punative measures should mandate treatment and provide for an evaluation of the drinking driver status before the client is dismissed. Treatment for problem drinkers should be based on symptomatology and should focus on the underlying problem. A growing body of literature suggests that problem drinkers are much more deviant than originally suspected. Many of them have practiced deviant careers for a long period of time and many have severe emotional problems as well (Annis, 1979; Argeriou & Paulino, 1976; Perrine, 1975; Selzer, 1975). A detailed arrest history, compiled on a subsample of offenders arrested in the Mississippi project over a 1-year period, showed that well over half of the offenders had extensive criminal records and were candidates for criminal reform in addition to alcohol abuse (Landrum, Windham & Roebuck, 1982). Does this mean that all problem drinkers are candidates for inpatient treatment programs? Probably for a large percentage, yes; for others, no. The determination should be made on the basis of a thorough evaluation of symptomatology. The courts should prescribe the treatment that is indicated in consultation with professionals in alcohol treatment programs. 1557

14 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was funded in part by a contract with the National Highway Safety Program, U.S. Department of Transportation (Contract No. DOT HS ) and, in part, by the Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University. REFERENCES Annis, H. M. (1979). The detoxication alternatives to handling of public inebriates: The Ontario experience. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 40 : Argeriou, M., and Paulino, D. (1976). Women arrested for drunk driving in Boston. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, _37 : Cahalan, D. (1970). Problem Drinking. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Center for Study of Social Behavior, Research Triangle Institute (1975). Summary of Final Report: A National Study of Adolescent Drinking Behavior, Attitudes and Correlates. Rockville, M D : National Clearinghouse for Alcohol Information. Crowe, J. T. (1975). Identifying the Problem Drinking Driver: An Evaluation of Some Psychometric Techniques, Report No. 48, Mississippi State, Mississippi: Social Science Research Center. Donovan, D. M., Marlatt, G. A., and Salzberg, P. M. (1983). Drinking behavior personality factors and high-risk driving. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44: Ellingstad, V. S., and Struckman-Johnson, D. L. (1977). Short-Term Rehabilitation (STR) Study: Internal Analysis of STR Performance and Effectiveness. Report No. DOT-HS Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Filkins, L. D., Mortimer, R. G., Post, D. V., and Chapman, M. M. (1974). Field Evaluation of Court Procedure for Identifying Problem Drinkers. Report No. DOT-HS Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Highway Safety Research. 1558

15 Hart, L. S., and Stewland, D. (1979). An application of multidimensional model of alcoholism. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 40 : Holden, R. T., and Steward, L. T. (1981). Tennessee DWI Probation Follow-Up Project. Report No. D O T - H S O H 9 9. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service. Horn, L. J., and Wanberg, K. W. (1969). Symptom patterns related to excessive use of alcohol. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 3 0: Horn, L. J., and Wanberg, K. W. (1970). Dimensions of perception of background and current situation of alcoholic patients. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 31: Jellinek, E. M. (1952). Phases of alcohol addiction. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, ] 3: Jellinek, E. M. (1961). The Disease Concept of Alcoholism. Highland Park, New Jersey: Hillhouse Press. Kerlan, M. W., Mortimer, R. G., Mudge, B., and Filkins, L. P. (1971). Court Procedures for Identifying Problem Drinkers: Volume 1, Manual. Report No. DOT-HS Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Institute. Kielty, J. (1972). Will cars say no to drinking drivers? Traffic Safety, 3 9: Landrum, W., Windham, G. O., and Roebuck, J. B. (1982). Criminal behavior of DUI offenders. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology in Toronto. Landrum, J. W., Miles, S. M., Neff, R. L., Pritchard, T. E., Roebuck, J. B., Wells-Parker,E. N., and Windham, G. 0. (1981). Mississippi DUI Probation Follow-Up Project. Report No. DOT-HS Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1975). A National Study of Adolescent Drinking Behaviors: Attitudes and Correlates. NIAAA, NTIS No. PB , Rockville, M D. Neff, R. L., and Landrum, J. W. (1981). The "Life Activities Inventory" as a countermeasure for driving while; intoxicated. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44:

16 Nichols, J. L., Weinstein, E. B., Ellingstad, V. S., and Struckman-Johnson, D. L. (1978). The specific deterrent effect of ASAP education and rehabilitation programs. Journal of Safety Research, 10: Perrine, M. W. (1975). The Vermont Driver Profile: A psychometric approach to early identification of potential high-risk drinking drivers. Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety. Toronto, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario. Pp Ross, H. L. (1982). Deterring the Drinking Driver: Legal Policy and Social Control. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books. Salzberg, P. M., and Klingberg, C. L. (1983). The effectiveness of deferred prosecution for driving while intoxicated. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 4 4: Selzer, M. L. (1975). Alcoholics and social drinkers: Characteristics and differentiation. In Israelstam, S., and Lambert, S. (eds.), Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety. Toronto, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario. Pp Snow, R. W., and Lightsey, M. L. (1983). The drinking motivations and behaviors of Mississippi DUI offenders: Male/Female comparison. Unpublished manuscript, Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State, Mississippi. Snow, R. W.,and Cunningham, 0. R. (1983). Age, machismo, and the drinking location of drunken drivers. Unpublished manuscript, Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State, Mississippi. State of Mississippi, Department of Public Safety (1981). Annual Summary. Jackson, Mississippi. Steer, R. A., Fine, E. W., and Scoles, P. E. (1979). Classification of men arrested for driving while intoxicated and treatment implications. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 40: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1974). Second Special Report to the Congress on Alcohol and Health, from the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1560

17 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1968). Alcohol and Highway Safety: Peport to the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1979). Summary of National Alcohol Safety Action Program. (DOT HS 8C4032). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1980, 1981). Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1561

18 n n / PVI ARRF.STS Convicted Offender PSI Data Gathering for Drinker Category Classification Driving Record RAC M-F Figure 1. Project activity flow diagram. 1562