Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:11 am
Time: 1:11 am
Results for driving under the influence (u.s.)
7 results foundAuthor: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Title: Vital Signs: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Adults --- United States, 2010 Summary: Background: Alcohol-impaired driving crashes account for nearly 11,000 crash fatalities, or about one third of all crash fatalities in the United States. Methods: CDC analyzed data from the 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey to obtain the prevalence, episodes, and rates of alcohol-impaired driving (defined as driving "when you've had perhaps too much to drink" in the past 30 days) among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years who responded to the survey by landline telephone. Results: In 2010, an estimated 4 million U.S. adult respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving, for an estimated total of approximately 112 million alcohol-impaired driving episodes or 479 episodes per 1,000 adult population. From a peak in 2006, such episodes decreased 30% through 2010. Men accounted for 81% of all episodes with young men aged 21--34 years accounting for 32% of all episodes. Additionally, 85% of alcohol-impaired driving episodes were reported by persons who also reported binge drinking, and the 4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking at least four times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes. Episode rates were nearly four times higher among persons who reported not always wearing seatbelts compared with persons who reported always wearing seatbelts. Conclusions: Rates of self-reported alcohol-impaired driving have declined substantially in recent years. However, rates remain disproportionally high among young men, binge drinkers, and those who do not always wear a seat belt. Implications for Public Health: States and communities should continue current evidence-based strategies, such as sobriety checkpoints and enforcement of 0.08 g/dL blood alcohol concentration laws to deter the public from driving while impaired. Additionally, all states should consider requiring ignition interlocks on the vehicles of all persons convicted of alcohol-impaired driving. States without primary seatbelt laws should consider enacting them to reduce fatalities in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Details: Washington, DC: CDC, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Oct. 4, 2011: Accessed October 26, 2011 at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm?s_cid=mm6039a4_w Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm?s_cid=mm6039a4_w Shelf Number: 123156 Keywords: Alcohol AbuseDriving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drunk Driving |
Author: McCartt, Anne T. Title: Washington State’s Alcohol Ignition Interlock Law: Effects on Recidivism Among First-time DUI Offenders Summary: Objective: More than half of U.S. states require some DUI offenders to install ignition interlocks on their vehicles for a certain period of time if they want to drive. Increasingly states are strengthening these laws to apply to all offenders, including first-time offenders. The current study evaluated two changes in Washington state’s interlock law: moving the issuance of interlock orders from the courts to the Department of Licensing in July 2003, and extending the interlock requirement to cover all convicted offenders, including first-time offenders with blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) lower than 0.15 percent (―first simple DUI offenders‖), in June 2004. The primary focus was whether or not these law changes affected rates of recidivism among first-time DUI offenders. Method: Trends in the types of convictions resulting from a DUI arrest, rates of interlock orders and installations, and rates of recidivism were examined, using data extracted from driver license records. The main focus was first-time convictions (simple, high-BAC, and test refusal DUI; deferred prosecution; or alcohol-related negligent driving) stemming from arrests on DUI charges occurring during January 1999-June 2006. Regression analyses examined the effects on rates of recidivism of the law changes and of interlock installation rates. Possible general deterrent effects of the law changes on alcoholimpaired driving were examined by comparing trends in single-vehicle nighttime (9 p.m.-6 a.m.) policereported crashes and fatal crashes in Washington with trends in California and Oregon. Results: Throughout the study period, about three-quarters of DUI offenses were first offenses. Simple DUI convictions and alcohol-related negligent driving convictions each accounted for about 30-40 percent of first DUI-related offenses. After interlocks were required for simple DUIs in 2004, the proportion of simple DUI convictions trended somewhat downward, while the proportion of alcohol-related negligent driving convictions continued a slow, long-term upward trend. The interlock installation rate among first simple DUI offenders increased dramatically as a result of the 2004 law change, going from less than 5 percent before the law change to about one-third after; increases in installation rates were observed among other first DUI offenders as well. Extending the interlock requirement to first simple DUI convictions was estimated to have lowered the cumulative rate of recidivism during the 2 years following arrest by about 12 percent among people with such convictions (e.g., from an expected 10.6 percent without the law change to 9.3 percent among offenders arrested in the second quarter of 2006, the last part of the study period) and by about 11 percent (from an expected 10.2 to 9.1 percent) among all first-time DUI offenders. There was an estimated 0.06 percentage point decrease in the 2-year cumulative recidivism rate for each percentage point increase in the proportion of first simple DUI offenders who installed interlocks. If the interlock installation rate had been 100 percent rather than 34 percent for first simple DUI offenders arrested in the second quarter of 2006, and if the linear relationship between the recidivism rate and the rate of interlock installations continued, the 2-year cumulative recidivism rate could have been reduced from 9.3 to 5.3 percent. Similarly, if the interlock installation rate had been 100 percent rather than 24 percent for all first DUI offenders arrested in the second quarter of 2006, their 2-year cumulative recidivism rate could have been reduced from 9.1 to 3.2 percent. Although interlock installation rates increased somewhat after moving responsibility for issuing interlock orders to the Department of Licensing in 2003, that action did not significantly affect recidivism rates, perhaps due to the short follow-up period before the second law change. The 2004 law change was associated with a 4.8 percent reduction in the risk of single-vehicle nighttime crashes in Washington, but the change was not significant given the variability in the data. A smaller and likewise non-significant reduction in the risk of single-vehicle nighttime fatal crashes was estimated. Conclusions: Extending an interlock requirement to all first-time DUI convictions reduces recidivism among the cohort of affected offenders, even with relatively low interlock use rates, and additional gains are likely to be achievable with higher use rates. Jurisdictions should seek ways to increase installation rates among offenders required to install interlocks and should re-consider policies that allow reducing DUI charges to other traffic offenses that do not have an interlock requirement. Details: Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2012. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2012 at: http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1168.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1168.pdf Shelf Number: 125696 Keywords: Alcohol Interlock DevicesDriving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drunk DrivingRecidivism |
Author: American Probation and Parole Association Title: Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource Outlining Probation & Parole Challenges, Effective Strategies and Model Programs Summary: The American Probation and Parole Association and the Century Council convened a group of community supervision and corrections experts to develop the “Hardcore Drunk Driving Community Supervision Guide: A Resource for Outlining Supervision Challenges, Effective Strategies, and Model Programs.” This guide combines the latest in evidenced-based supervision practices with treatment strategies known to work with alcohol involved and DUI/DWI offenders. The advisory group assembled to develop this guide began by identifying what would educate and benefit the community corrections field. To that end, the group identified supervision challenges, and where applicable possible solutions to those challenges, promising practices working in their jurisdictions, and an array of resources for community corrections practitioners and administrators to turn to for additional information and guidance. What is meant by saying that someone is supervised in the community? It means that probation and/or parole officers using a combined approach involving surveillance, treatment, and accountability, enforce the court ordered rules and sentencing meted out to the offenders. Details: Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association; Arlington, VA: Century Council, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/materials/HCDD-Community-Supervision-Guide.pdf Shelf Number: 125799 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity-based CorrectionsDriving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drunk DrivingParoleProbation |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court Process and Outcome Evaluation. Final Report Summary: For the past 20 years in the United States, there has been a trend toward guiding nonviolent drug and alcohol offenders into treatment rather than incarceration. The original drug court model links the resources of the criminal system and substance treatment programs to increase treat-ment participation and decrease criminal recidivism. Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent offenders in the nation. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of December 2010, there were 2,633 drug courts including 1,881 adult and juvenile drug courts, 343 family courts, and 409 other types of drug courts in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (NDCI, 2011). In a typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives that operate outside of their traditional adversarial roles. These include addiction treatment providers, district attorneys, public defenders, law enforce-ment officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. Generally, there is a high level of supervision and a standardized treatment program for all the participants within a particular court (including phases that each participant must pass through by meeting certain goals). Supervision and treatment may also include regular and frequent drug testing. More recently, over the past 10 years, the drug court model has been expanded to include other populations (e.g., juveniles) and other systems (e.g., child welfare and mental health). The model has also been used with a special focus on specific types of offenders (e.g., DWI offenders). DWI courts specifically target repeat driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) offenders with the main goal of protecting public safety. Benefits to society take the form of reductions in crime and fu-ture DWIs, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. DWI courts, specifically, have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism (both of DWIs and other crimes) and in reducing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for DWI court participants, in-cluding fewer re-arrests, less time in jail and less time in prison (Carey, Fuller, Kissick, Taylor, & Zold-Kilbourn, 2008). In 2008, San Joaquin County implemented a system change where all repeat DUI offenders in the largest judicial district (mainly the City of Stockton) are required to participate in a DUI Monitor-ing Court program. Because this program was designed to treat all repeat DUI offenders, and be-cause the drug court model is designed to treat high-risk/high-need offenders (in particular, drug- or alcohol-dependent individuals) the San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court (SJDMC) does not fol-low all tenants of the drug court model for all participants. Many of the repeat DUI offenders in this program are not dependent on alcohol or other drugs and do not need the high level of supervision and treatment that would be appropriate for high-risk/high-need offenders. For this reason, there are two tracks to the San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court. Track 1 is the “monitoring track” where participants are required to come to court infrequently to report on progress in completing the terms of their probation, including DMV requirements to qualify to get their license returned. Track 2 is for those participants who demonstrate that they are unable to comply with Track 1 re-quirements and are assessed as needing drug and alcohol treatment. Track 2 follows a drug court model more closely. The SJDMC program is described in detail in Chapter 1 of this report. For the evaluation of the SJDMC, the court was interested in learning about the effectiveness of this program in reducing DUI recidivism and protecting public safety and, if it proved to be effec-tive, wanted a detailed process evaluation that would allow other interested jurisdictions to follow the model in implementing a similar program. Chapter 1 of this report describes the process eval-uation methods and provides a detailed description of the program. Chapter 2 presents the meth-ods and results of the outcome evaluation. The process evaluation was also designed to provide the SJDMC program with suggestions for process improvement. Chapter 3 compares the SJDMC practices with the research-based drug court best practices and provides recommendations for en-hancing Track 2 of the program. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2012. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2013 at: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/reports/California-Evaluation-1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/reports/California-Evaluation-1.pdf Shelf Number: 128398 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drugged DrivingDrunk DrivingProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Fell, James C. Title: Increasing Impaired-Driving Enforcement Visibility: Six Case Studies Summary: Research has shown that an effective way to reduce impaired driving is to increase the perceived risk of being stopped and arrested by law enforcement if driving while impaired. One of the most successful strategies for doing this is the coupling of intense and highly visible enforcement with publicity about the enforcement campaign. The term “high-visibility enforcement” (HVE) is used to describe law enforcement efforts aimed at deterring unsafe driving behavior by increasing the public’s perception of being caught, arrested, and prosecuted. Two common enforcement strategies of HVE operations are sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols. Checkpoints concentrate law enforcement officers at the roadside to identify impaired drivers passing through. Saturation patrols involve an increased number of officers patrolling a limited area where impaired driving is prevalent. Both use highly visible elements (such as a concentration of law enforcement officers, bright lights, signs, and marked patrol cars) to heighten their visual impact. Enforcement efforts must be supported by an equal amount of publicity and communications. Publicity regarding the operations also raises awareness, and the perception of increased likelihood of detection of impaired driving. Research has indicated that HVE operations that are well-publicized, conducted frequently, and have high visibility deter impaired driving. This report presents six case studies of HVE programs currently operating in the United States. Three operate at the county level— Anoka County, Minnesota; Charles County, Maryland; and Pasco County, Florida. One operates at the city level in Escondido, California. One operates in a region of a State (Southeast Wisconsin). One operates in six States (Delaware, Kentucky, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia. Each case study includes discussion of the HVE program’s history, enforcement strategies, visibility elements, operation, resources, use of media, educational components, funding, support from political leaders and the community, barriers encountered, and strengths of the program. Some case studies include statistics on the HVE operations (e.g., number of checkpoints, number of officers per saturation patrol) and impaired-driving crashes, arrests, and/or convictions before and after the program began. The report is intended to provide information on impaired driving HVE programs for regional, State and local agencies considering incorporating HVE strategies into their efforts to curb impaired driving or to modify existing HVE programs. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2013. 144p. Source: Internet Resource: DOT HS 811 716: Accessed July 9, 2013 at: www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811716.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 129338 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drunk DrivingPublicity CampaignsSobriety Checkpoints |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Drug-Impaired Driving: Additional Support Needed for Public Awareness Initiatives Summary: The issue of alcohol-impaired driving has received broad attention over the years, but drug-impaired driving also contributes to fatalities and injuries from traffic crashes. However, knowledge about the drug-impaired- driving problem is less advanced than for alcohol-impaired driving. Through Senate Report No. 113-45 (2013), Congress required GAO to report on the strategies NHTSA, ONDCP, and states have taken to address drug-impaired driving and challenges they face in detecting and reducing such driving. This report discusses (1) what is known about the extent of drug-impaired driving in the United States; (2) challenges that exist for federal, state, and local agencies in addressing drug-impaired driving; and (3) actions federal and state agencies have taken to address drug-impaired driving and what gaps exist in the federal response. GAO reviewed literature to identify sources of data on drug-impaired driving; reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from NHTSA, ONDCP, and HHS; and interviewed officials from relevant advocacy and professional organizations and seven selected states. States were selected based on: legal status of marijuana, proximity to states with legalized marijuana, and drugged-driving laws. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that NHTSA take additional actions to support states in emphasizing to the public the dangers of drug-impaired driving. DOT agreed with GAO's recommendation. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-293: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668622.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668622.pdf Shelf Number: 134685 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: Berning, Amy Title: Results of the 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers Summary: Over the last four decades, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and/or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted four national surveys to estimate the prevalence of drinking and driving in the United States (Wolfe, 1974; Lund & Wolfe, 1991; Voas et al, 1998; Compton & Berning, 2009; Lacey et al, 2009). The first National Roadside Survey (NRS) was conducted in 1973, followed by national surveys of drivers in 1986, 1996, 2007, and now 2013-2014. These surveys used a stratified random sample of weekend nighttime drivers in the contiguous 48 States and collected data directly from drivers on the road. The 2007 NRS added procedures to the NRS for the first time to estimate the use by drivers of other potentially impairing drugs. Prior roadside surveys had only collected breath samples to determine breath alcohol concentration (BrAC). Due to developments in analytical toxicology, NHTSA determined it would be feasible in the 2007 and 2013-2014 surveys to determine driver use of a variety of potentially impairing drugs including illegal drugs as well as legal medications. In 2013-2014, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted the most recent National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. This voluntary and anonymous study is the second to collect data on drug use, presenting our first opportunity to examine drug use trends on a national scale. The 20132014 NRS was designed to produce national estimates of alcohol and drug use by weekday daytime and weekend nighttime drivers. Thus, the use rates presented below are national prevalence rates calculated from the percentage of drivers using alcohol or drugs and adjusted with an appropriate weighting scheme. Details: Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2015. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 812 118): Accessed March 9, 2015 at: www.nhtsa.gov Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: www.nhtsa.gov Shelf Number: 134767 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.S.)Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingDrunk Driving |