The Risk of Alcohol-Related Traffic Events and Recidivism Among Young Offenders A Theoretical Approach EM Ahlin WJ Rauch PL Zador D Duncan Center for Studies on Alcohol, Substance Abuse Research Group, Westat, 1650 Research Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20850, USA Background Alcohol-impaired driving is a crime that can result in violent and fatal crashes that may involve the at-fault driver and unsuspecting drivers, passengers, and/or pedestrians. The existing literature on young adults involvement in alcohol-related traffic violations examines recidivism, but fails to address explanations for why recidivism occurs. Criminological theories have been insufficiently utilized to explain the occurrence and risk of recidivism among young alcohol-related traffic offenders, focusing mainly on deterrence based models. Despite the seriousness of alcohol-impaired driving, exploration of theoretical models to explain recidivism among young drivers is limited. Deterrence theory is the most widely applied criminological theory to the crime of alcoholimpaired driving. Deterrence theory is based on the idea that people weigh the pros (benefits) and cons (negative costs) of a criminal act, and freely choose their behavior, both conforming and deviant, based on rational calculations. All factors being equal, deterrence theory presumes that people make choices that maximize individual pleasure and if the benefits outweigh the negative costs, people may engage in crime. Crime prevention efforts utilizing the deterrence theory approach focus on two areas: general deterrence and specific deterrence. General deterrence focuses on preventing the general population from committing a deviant act by punishing offenders and making nonoffenders fear apprehension and punishment. An example of general deterrence is the use of sobriety checkpoints. While individual alcohol-impaired drivers become the specific target of enforcement activities at sobriety checkpoints, the publicity generated by the arrest and apprehension of alcohol-impaired drivers is meant to reduce the probability of alcohol-impaired driving in the general population. The certainty, celerity and appropriate severity of sanctions for alcohol-impaired driving are the key elements to reducing this behavior in the general population. Thus, general deterrence focuses on preventing future deviant behavior by impacting the perceived consequences and thus the individual pleasure of the deviant act (e.g., alcohol-impaired driving). Specific deterrence is aimed at punishing known offenders in order to prevent them from recidivating. The expectancy is that by the use of increasing levels of punishment and their associated negative consequences, the deviant behavior can be extinguished. Two derivatives of deterrence theory are rational choice and reconceptualization. As in deterrence theory, rational choice maintains that individuals rationally choose to engage in a criminal act to maximize personal benefits and reduce personal costs (1). Rational choice expands upon deterrence theory by suggesting that involvement in crime comprises two components: the decision to become criminal and the decision to engage in a criminal act. Unlike deterrence theory, which assumes that crime is merely a function of calculating the costs and benefits of formal/official sanctions, rational choice suggests that the decision to become criminal is also influenced by calculating the costs/benefits of
informal/unofficial sanctions (i.e., disapproval of family or friends, loss of job). Similar to deterrence theory, rational choice presumes that decisions are made rationally, by weighing benefits and negative costs. However, unlike deterrence theory, rational choice theory does not presume that all choices are well-thought out, calculating, decision-making experiences. Rather, choices may be time-, ability- and information-limited. Traditionally, deterrence theory views general and specific deterrence as separate social controls aimed at different populations (non-offenders and offenders). Reconceptualization attempts to close this gap by emphasizing that both general and specific deterrence are important experiences with formal/official sanctions and are applicable to both offenders and the general population (2). Reconceptualization expands upon deterrence theory by addressing the concept of punishment avoidance (i.e., committing a crime without being caught or sanctioned). Experiences with punishment avoidance can be direct (committing a crime without detection or formal/official sanctions) or indirect (knowledge of someone else committing a crime without detection or formal/official sanctions). Reconceptualization maintains that both offenders and the general population will have some level of direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance. Both rational choice and reconceptualization theories have been tested to explain alcoholrelated driving events (3, 4). Neither study, however, tested these theories with a sample of alcohol-related traffic offenders. In the United States, an alcohol-related traffic violation (event) may result in administrative penalties mandated under Administrative Per Se (APS) regulations for failing or refusing the breath alcohol test and criminal penalties mandated for a conviction. In addition, in some states and under some conditions, an offender can be placed in a diversion program following a conviction or nolo contendere plea. Motor Vehicle Administrations (MVA) and state legislative and judicial branches of government routinely consider only convictions when classifying alcohol-impaired drivers thus underestimating the true prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving. In addition, some alcohol-related traffic offenders manage to have their driver records expunged under certain conditions and many state licensing agencies routinely purge driving records after a set number of years. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the driver record underestimates the true incidence of alcoholrelated traffic offenses and ensures that classification of first-time alcohol-related offenders is inaccurate. Underestimates are even more likely to occur for young drivers since the probability of arrest for drivers aged 16 to 19 (1 arrest per 600 trips) is lower than the probability of arrest for drivers aged 20 and older (1 arrest per 200 trips) (5). This evidence makes it reasonable to assume that the typical so-called first-time young alcohol-related traffic offender will have had an extensive but undocumented history of alcohol-impaired driving by the time he or she makes it into the licensing authority s record system. The increasing relative risk of fatal crash involvement as a function of increasing BAC is well established (6, 7). This is especially true for young drivers, even at very low BACs (<.02). For the 16-20 age group, the risk of a fatal injury in a single vehicle crash in the.01-.019% BAC range is elevated by 55% among men and 35% among women. In the BAC range of.05 g/dl -.079 g/dl the risk is elevated for this group of young drivers by a factor of 17.3 for males and 7.0 for females; and at a BAC >.15 g/dl, by an astounding 15,560 for males and 738 for females (7). Furthermore, we also know that youths initiating alcohol use at an early age are at increased risk for alcohol abuse or dependence during their lifetime (8), for
alcohol-impaired driving, and for being involved in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes (9). Objectives Because of the problems associated with initiation of alcohol use at an early age, the underestimation of the true incidence of alcohol-related traffic offenses on the driver record, the low probability of arrest among young alcohol-impaired drivers, and the increasing risk of a fatal crash, even at very low BAC (e.g., under.02), we estimate the risk of alcohol-related traffic events and recidivism among young (18-25) offenders. We also examine two variations in deterrence theory (rational choice and reconceptualization) in an effort to explain the occurrence and risk of alcohol-related traffic recidivism among this group of offenders in the State of Maryland, USA, during the study period 1994-2003. Based on an analysis of approximately 37,000 young drivers, we compared the probability of alcohol-related traffic recidivism among young offenders between drivers with no alcohol-related prior event, drivers with one prior alcohol-related event, and by disposition sequence. The results indicate that having even one alcoholrelated event, whether handled administratively, judicially and/or through diversion programs, is a strong risk factor of subsequent alcohol-related events among 18-25 year old Maryland drivers (10). Methods For purposes of this study, we define an alcohol-related event as any administrative (APS Failure and APS Refusal), criminal (conviction) or diversion sanction [Probation Before Judgment (PBJ)] imposed. Depending on how an offender is apprehended and processed through the administrative and criminal systems, there are eight (8) possible and mutually exclusive disposition sequences (Table 1). Table 1: Possible Disposition Sequences for Alcohol-Related Traffic Events Disposition Sequence Definition APS Failure (APS+) Breath Alcohol Test > 0.10, Not Convicted APS+, Conviction Breath Alcohol Test > 0.10, Convicted APS+, Conviction, PBJ Breath Alcohol Test > 0.10, Convicted, Received PBJ APS Refusal Refused Breath Alcohol Test, Not Convicted APS Refusal, Conviction Refused Breath Alcohol Test, Convicted APS Refusal, Conviction, PBJ Refused Breath Alcohol Test, Convicted, Received PBJ Alcohol-Related Conviction Breath Alcohol Test Not Administered, Convicted Alcohol-Related Conviction, PBJ Breath Alcohol Test Not Administered, Convicted, Received PBJ We compare the probability of no alcohol-related event as a function of time (1) between drivers with no alcohol-related prior event and drivers with one prior alcohol-related event, and (2) among drivers with different types of first alcohol-related event dispositions. Maryland drivers who received their first alcohol-related event between ages 18 and 25 were compared to age-matched Maryland drivers to determine the effect of the first alcohol-related event on subsequent alcohol-related events. These (case) drivers were entered into the study on the date they received their first alcohol-related citation. For each case driver, three control drivers with no prior alcohol-related event at the time were also entered into the study on the citation date. Cox s proportional hazard model was used to estimate survival probability as a function of gender, race, and final disposition from Maryland driver records between January 1, 1994 and September 1, 2003.
Two model specifications were defined. In the first model, the focus was on the effect of a single alcohol-related event on survival probability. In the second model, the focus was on the effect of specific dispositions. Both models also included covariates that identified female and African American drivers. These covariates defined race- and gender-specific survival functions. Both models were estimated twice, once with stratification on age and entry-date, and a second time without stratification. Results and Analysis The study included 9,361 drivers who were entered in the study on the date of their first alcohol-related event. These drivers (cases) accounted for 25% of the full sample of 37,444 case and control drivers. About 5.4% of the full sample had one or more subsequent alcohol-related events. Overall, the event rate while in the study was 14.7% for cases and 2.3% for control drivers. For African Americans, the percent of drivers with a subsequent alcohol-related event was 12.3% for case and 1.1% for control drivers both lower than the comparable percents for the whole sample. For females, the percent of subsequent alcohol-related events was 10.4% for case and 1.0% for control drivers both also lower than the comparable percentages for the whole sample. The percent of drivers with an alcohol-related event was affected by age at entry for both case and control drivers: the event percent declined from 21.0% for cases entering the study at age 16 to about 6.0% for cases entering after age 23. The comparable decline for control drivers was from 2.7% to about 0.5%. The percent of drivers with an alcohol-related event was also affected by year at entry date for both case and control drivers: the event percent declined from about 40% for cases entering the study in 1994 to about 2.4% for cases entering in 2003. The comparable decline for control drivers was from 6.7% to about 0.3%. The percent of drivers with an alcohol-related event was similarly affected by first license year for both case and control drivers: declining from about 19.4% for cases first licensed in 1994 to about 4% for cases first licensed in 2003. The comparable decline for control drivers was from 3.6% to about 0.0%. Survival probability was estimated for drivers after their first alcohol-related event and for age-matched control drivers who entered into the study on the same day but had no prior alcohol-related event as of that date. Females and African Americans are both less likely than non-african American males to have a subsequent alcohol-related event, and relative to controls, cases are more likely to have a subsequent alcohol-related event than their age-matched counterparts regardless of race or gender (data not shown). Among non- African American males, 3.3 % of the controls and 13.5% of the cases was estimated to have had an alcohol-related event by the end of the 8 th quarter (approximately 2 years) after entering the study. Among females, the comparable percentages were 0.9% for controls and 9.2% for cases, and among African Americans it was 1.4% for controls and 10.6% for cases. Table 2 presents parameter estimates for the proportional hazard model of survival probability by disposition sequence. Controlling for race and gender, drivers with a prior alcohol-related event are more likely to have subsequent alcohol-related events than agematched drivers who had no prior alcohol-related event, regardless of the final disposition of the first alcohol-related event.
Table 2. Analysis of Model Estimates for the Effect of Disposition Sequence Variable DF Estimate Standard Error Chi Square Prob Chi Square Hazard Ratio APS+ 1 1.71 0.09 369.29 <0.0001 5.52 APS+ and Conviction 1 1.66 0.12 200.82 <0.0001 5.26 APS+, Conviction and PBJ 1 1.17 0.07 294.40 <0.0001 3.21 APS Refusal 1 1.37 0.14 102.24 <0.0001 3.92 APS Refusal and Conviction 1 1.46 0.20 52.40 <0.0001 4.31 APS Refusal, Conviction and PBJ 1 1.25 0.12 105.34 <0.0001 3.50 Conviction 1 1.68 0.09 316.63 <0.0001 5.35 Conviction and PBJ 1 1.71 0.07 579.52 <0.0001 5.55 Female 1-1.29 0.09 18.21 <0.0001 0.27 African American 1-0.89 0.14 42.46 <0.0001 0.41 Case Female 1 0.89 0.12 53.89 <0.0001 2.44 Case African American 1 0.61 0.18 11.96 0.0005 1.84 Discussion According to rational choice theory, it is understandable how drivers could make the decision to drive while alcohol-impaired due to several assumptions that he or she can make about the administrative and criminal system. First, the driver must reasonably assume that he or she will be detected. Given the low probability of arrest (5), it is rational for a driver to believe that the benefits outweigh the potential costs of being caught. Second, if a driver is indeed detected, he or she may or may not be arrested, prosecuted, or let alone convicted. We have identified eight (8) possible disposition sequences by which a driver can be apprehended and processed through the administrative and criminal system, with four ultimate outcomes (APS+, APS Refusal, PBJ and Conviction). A driver can rationalize that they have a 1 in 4 chance of receiving a conviction if their case makes it that far in the administrative or judicial system. APS+, APS Refusal or PBJ are not routinely counted as an alcohol-related driving event by administrative, law enforcement and judicial officials, insurance companies, and in some jurisdictions under certain circumstances, these events are maintained in a segregated record and unavailable to law enforcement, judicial officials and insurance companies. Third, less harsh penalties are associated with an APS refusal. Repeat and DWI savvy offenders refuse the breath alcohol test. The refusal can be admitted into evidence at a hearing, but it is less likely to result in a conviction than if the driver had taken the breath test, failed, and subsequently provided the police with concrete evidence in the form of a breath alcohol concentration level (e.g., per se ). It is also reasonable to explain alcohol-impaired recidivism according to the reconceptualization of deterrence. As under rational choice, drivers can reasonably assume that their probability of arrest is low given that they and people they know have driven many times without being caught (punishment avoidance). It may be that punishment avoidance works as a conditioning tool to reinforce the behavior. Possible Next Steps Rational choice and reconceptualization theories need to be empirically tested in a longitudinal study of randomized drivers: (1) drivers with no alcohol-related events, (2) drivers with one alcohol-related event, and (3) drivers with two or more alcohol-related events at study entry. At base-line, drivers should be assessed on their beliefs regarding deterrence and expectations to drive after drinking. At follow-up, driver's involvement in recidivism would be determined via official driver records and a self-report interview. Application of rational choice and reconceptualization theories to alcohol-impaired drivers may be limited. First, alcohol-impaired drivers may not be rational. They may lack the
cognitive capabilities to make rational decisions under the influence of alcohol. Second, further exploration into the social (i.e., informal social controls such as family, friends) and environmental factors (i.e., knowledge of sobriety checkpoints) that may influence decision-making may be necessary. Conclusions This study found that having even one alcohol-related event is a strong risk factor of subsequent alcohol-related events among 18-25 year old Maryland drivers, with the odds ratios for year two recidivism among drivers with a prior relative to drivers with no prior recidivism ranging between 4.6 for non-african American males to 11.2 for all females. Disposition sequence affected odds for recidivism. Regardless of disposition sequence, drivers with a prior alcohol-related event had substantially higher odds for a subsequent event than drivers with no prior. It is also noteworthy that although females and African Americans with no prior alcohol-related event had lower recidivism risk than white males with no prior, once they had one prior, drivers in both groups had a higher hazard ratio than white males who had no prior. Findings suggest that additional research is needed to identify which criminological theories may be applicable in reducing alcohol-related traffic events, and to explore specific behavioral and social factors associated with alcoholrelated traffic recidivism among young offenders. Acknowledgements Funding for this research has been provided by Grant R01 AA11897 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. References 1. Cornish DB, Clarke RV. Crime as a rational choice, In: The Reasoning Criminal, 1986. 2. Stafford MC, Warr M. A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1993, 30:123-135. 3. Nagin DS, Paternoster R. Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 1993, 27: 467-496. 4. Piquero A, Paternoster R. An application of Stafford and Warr s reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35: 3-39. 5. Hingson R. Environmental strategies to reduce chronic driving while intoxicated (Transportation Research Circular 437). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington (DC), 1995, pp 25-32. 6. Zador PL. Alcohol-related relative risk of fatal driver injuries in relation to driver age and sex. J ournal of Studies on Alcohol, 1991: 302-310. 7. Zador PL, Krawchuk SA, Voas RB. Alcohol-related relative risk of driver fatalities and driver involvement in fatal crashes in relation to driver age and gender: An update using 1996 data. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 2000: 387-395. 8. Grant BF, Dawson DA. Age at onset of alcohol use and its association with DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: Results from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 1997; 9:103-10. 9. Hingson R, Heeren T, Levenson S, Jamanka A, Voas R. Age of drinking onset, driving after drinking, and involvement in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington (DC), 2001. 10. Rauch WJ, Zador PL, Ahlin EM, Duncan D. Risk of recidivating among young alcohol-related traffic offenders by administrative and/or criminal sanctions imposed. Paper presented at the 17 th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom, August 2004.