Assessment: Evaluating the Problems of the Hardcore Drunk Driver

Often viewed as the first step to rehabilitation, the assessment process helps focus time, attention and treatment on the offenders who need it the most. It is particularly critical in dealing with hardcore drunk drivers, since it is a key source of information about their drinking and driving habits. A major purpose of assessment is to reduce recidivism by determining the nature of a drunk driver’s alcohol involvement so appropriate treatment options can be identified and assigned.

Assessment procedures are either mandated by law, ordered by the court or required as a condition of license reinstatement. In some cases, offenders volunteer to be assessed and then participate in the recommended treatment program in order to reduce the length of license suspension. In some states, the certified counselor can adjudicate the offender into Alcoholics Anonymous or a medical treatment or counseling program. The re-licensing of the offender is contingent upon following the guidelines outlined by the assessor (About, Inc. 2003).

Research suggests an assessment — or minimally a screening — should be ordered prior to sentencing (NHTSA 1996), and a number of states do this. In jurisdictions where high caseloads preclude pre-sentencing assessments, an assessment can be made a condition of probation.

According to a 2001 study, most courts have a system for screening offenders into at least two groups: those considered social drinkers — those not generally seen as abusing or being dependent on alcohol — are assigned to a 10- to 14-hour education program, which tends to focus on better decision making skills relating to alcohol; and those who are problem drinkers — those who abuse alcohol and frequently experience negative consequences — are assigned to a 3- to 12-month treatment program for alcohol abuse. In some courts screening is based entirely on offense status — first offenders receive the educational program, while multiple offenders receive the treatment program. Other courts have screeners on their staffs who conduct a pre-sentence screening interview using one of the short inventories designed to identify problem drinkers (Voas and Fischer 2001).

Some courts have the resources to go beyond the rough screening described above and provide for a more detailed assessment of the offender’s needs. This assessment will normally consider the treatment programs available in the offender’s community, the offender’s employment and family and health status, in addition to the specific nature of his or her drinking problem. In addition, treatment agencies themselves typically conduct an assessment as part of their intake process to determine what type of therapeutic program is most likely to be effective with each client.

In some states a non-profit, state-certified organization conducts assessments and reports back to the court so the specific needs of the offender can be considered during the sentencing process. In other states, the assessment is carried out post-sentence and only used by the treatment provider.

An assessment usually includes a standardized assessment test and a personal interview by a trained evaluator. Minimally, an assessment should include an evaluation of the offender’s alcohol and drug use and a determination of the risk of recidivism. Additional information should be obtained from family members about the offender’s alcohol use and from the courts regarding the offender’s criminal and driving history.

Standardized techniques for assessment are available that take into account personal and social problems as well as alcohol abuse that may trigger drunk driving behavior. Researchers suggest all offenders — but at the very least those with high BACs — undergo a complete assessment as early as possible after the arrest so appropriate sanctions can be applied and the recommended intervention and recovery can begin.

Weekend Intervention Programs.One of the more intensive assessment methods is the Weekend Intervention Program (WIP). These residential programs, which range in length from two to three days, provide a comprehensive assessment of clients’ alcohol and drug involvement, confront denial and encourage self-evaluation, and prepare the clients for further treatment. In some jurisdictions, WIP is used as a treatment and education tool rather than as an assessment method (Siegal 1990). The Connecticut WIP provides alcohol education to second or subsequent DWI offenders. These offenders also attend three quarterly group sessions and one individual session upon completion of the weekend program.

An evaluation of Ohio's Weekend Intervention Program showed it was effective in lowering recidivism rates among repeat offenders. In a one to two year follow-up 21.8 percent of WIP participants recidivated compared to 26.8 percent of those in jail and 30.4 percent of offenders with suspended sentences (Siegal 1987).

Some form of alcohol screening or assessment is required for offenders in most states under certain circumstances. The circumstances triggering the assessment requirement vary greatly and may be mandated by law or by administrative procedures.
Assessment requirements can apply:

• to all those arrested;
  
  
• to all those convicted;
  
  
• only as a condition of probation or of a suspended sentence;
  
  
• only for offenders who do not receive an incarceration sentence;
  
  
• as a condition of license restoration or for a conditional license; and
  
  
• as part of a diversion program.

The National Hardcore Drunk Driver Project Survey found 41 states and three territories require assessments for first offenders. Of these, nine states require only first offenders with high BACs (above .15, .17, or .18) to undergo assessment, and five states have the requirement only for those participating in a diversion program. For hardcore offenders, assessment is required in 14 states on a second or subsequent offense, depending on various circumstances, as described above. In Colorado, each probation department has an Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety Program (ADDS). These offices are staffed with alcohol and drug evaluation specialists who evaluate and recommend treatment for defendants convicted of alcohol or drug-related driving offenses. Defendants are most often referred to weekly outpatient groups, individual therapy or daily outpatient sessions. For chronic alcohol abusers, ADDS evaluators may recommend hospitalization along with antabuse treatment or urinalysis (Colorado Judicial Branch 2002).

In New Jersey, assessments occur post-sentencing. They are conducted by county-based public or private providers and are overseen by the state. Upon conviction, first, second and third offenders are remanded by the court to their local Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC), which implements the Intoxicated Driving Program throughout the state. During detention, all offenders attend an alcohol and highway safety education program. Offenders are assessed at the center and, based on need, can be referred to a 16-week to one-year treatment program. The offender may also attend a self-help group for that time period. Offenders must participate in order to be re-licensed, and if they do not, their licenses are further suspended and they may face jail. The fees for attendance are $100 plus a $200 second offender fee and $50 license restoration fee (New Jersey Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Commission 2002).

Many of the initial assessments are offender-funded. In the Missouri Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program, participants in the Substance Abuse Traffic Offender Program (SATOP) pay a $125 fee at the time of the initial screening interview. These funds are used to pay for the intervention and counseling programs for repeat DWI offenders who are unable to pay. Anecdotal evidence suggests assessments and treatment may be cost-efficient because, over the long run, the system might be less burdened. By reaching first offenders who are likely to recidivate early, costs can be saved later.

As stated earlier, the goal of assessment as it relates to hardcore drunk driving is to determine when, and what type of, alcoholism treatment is warranted, in the hope of reducing recidivism. Because assessment and treatment go hand-in-hand, little research has focused solely on the effectiveness of assessments in reducing recidivism. A 2001 study in North Carolina suggests assessments do prove useful for the offender and found a majority of offenders completed the amount of treatment recommended by the assessor, with a number of people completing more than the recommended treatment (Baker 2001).

However, a 2002 AAAFTS study which evaluated the accuracy of several commonly-used screening instruments found even highly rated screening instruments lack a high level of accuracy. According to Chang, Gregory and Lapham, "the screening methods developed to date cannot accurately predict who will recidivate and who will not. Even the best assessments accurately detected only approximately 70% of recidivists and identified approximately 50% of offenders as problem drinkers." The report indicates a critical need for further research on the predictive validity of screening instruments and screening instruments in general.

The University of Illinois at Springfield, the Illinois Department of Transportation Division of Traffic Safety and a number of other agencies involved in working with DUI offenders are engaged in a long term study of the impact of risk assessment for the hardcore drunk driver. The study and subsequent piloting of a new risk reduction assessment program will feature a series of mini-studies to obtain a clearer understanding of the hardcore drunk driving offender and effective assessment criteria that can be used in DUI assessments and subsequent treatment programs.

Anderson, B.J., Snow, R.W., and Wells-Parker, E. 2000. Comparing the predictive validity of DUI risk screening instruments: Development of validation standards. Addiction 95(6): 915–926.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2002. It's time to get MADD all over again: Resuscitating the nation's efforts to prevent impaired driving: A report from the MADD impaired driving summit. Irving, TX: Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Rosnow, M. 1997. Milwaukee County Pretrial Intoxicated Driver Intervention Pilot Project: Four-Year Follow-Up Evaluation. Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin Correctional Service.