If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

..... " The Drunk Driver US Department of Transportation and Jail National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The Drunk Driver. and the Jail Problem

Volume 1

-- _.- - .. ------_._------The Drunk Driver and Jail The Drunk Driver 'and the Jail Pro,blem

Volume 1

~ .• "-:"1 if J!.:;!Y·' /' U.S. Department of Justice c, Nationaiinstitute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it, POints of view or opInions stated In this document are those of the authors and donol necessarily represent the official position or policies of the NatIOnal Institute of Justice

Permission 10 reproduce this ~ material has been granted by NC.lRS Public Domain - tJ. S. Department of Transportation

to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ AOQ.. ..., ... sion of the~ht owner. _.

Prepared in cooperation with the American Correctional Association, College Park, Maryland

u.s. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Contents

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... vii GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... xi SECTION I-GETTING TOUGH WITH DRUNK DRIVERS ...... 1 Purpose of this Manual ...... 2 SECTION 2-THE DRUNK DRIVER PROBLEM ...... 5 Accident Causes ...... 6 Who Is Most Involved in Drunk Driving Accidents? ...... 7 Six Methods for Reducing the Drunk Driving Problem ...... 8 No Easy Answers...... 9 SECTION 3--THE JAIL PROBLEM ...... " 11 Background ...... 11 Effects of Overcrowding ...... 14 Problems of Local Jails ...... 15 SECTION 4--JAIL VIOLENCE ...... 19 The Problem of Suicide ...... 20 SECTION 5-DETERRING THE DRUNK DRIVER ...... 23 Use of Jail Is Controversial ...... 23 Evidence for the Effectiveness of Jail Sentences ...... 23 Surveys of the Use of the Jail Sanction for DWI ...... 24 Functions of Sanctions for DWI ...... 25 Impact on Court System ...... 26 Summary ...... 27 SECTION 6-DEVELOPING A COHERENT SANCTIONING POLICY ...... 29 Punishing the Drunk Driver Can Be Expensive ...... 30 Producing an Integrated Scale of Punishment ...... 30 Lack of Intermediate-Level Restrictions ...... 32 DWI Provides Special Sanction Opportunities ...... 32 Summary ...... 34 SECTION 7-ALCOHOL TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS ...... 35 Drunk Driver Treatment Programs ...... 35 Summary ...... 39 SECTION 8-CONSIDERATIONS FOR SANCTIONING DRUNK DRIVERS .. 41 Summary ...... 44 APPENDIX A-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: IMPACT OF TWO-DAY JAIL SENTENCES FOR DRUNK DRIVERS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA...... 45 REFERENCES ...... 49

iii Acknowledgments

This manual was prepared by the American Correctional Association (ACA) under Contract DTNH22-83-C-05131 from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The ACA was privileged to have the assistance of a distinguished steering committee in the preparation of this manual. Members of this group reviewed the original plans for the project and read and commented on drafts of the manual.

Doris Aiken Ray Nelson President Director Remove Intoxicated Drivers NIC Jail Center Gary Blake Stephen Powers Director Division of Probation Department of Correction New York State and Rehabilitation Samuel Saxton Montgomery County, MD Director Norman R. Cox, Jr. Department of Corrections President Prince George's County, American Jail Association MD Francis R. Ford Gene A. Scroggy Director, Jail Operations Warden National Sheriff's Association Kentucky State Penitentiary

In addition to the members of the advisory panel, the ACA is indebled to several individuals who provided special assistance in on-site or telephone interviews.

Stephen A. Carter Bruce Orenstein Carter-Goble Associates, Inc. Department of Corrections Columbia, SC Prince George's County, MD James Kirk Chief Deputy Michael 0 'Toole Sheriff's Department National Institute of Mecklenburg County, NC Corrections Jail Center John J. Memory Boulder, CO Office of the Governor Columbia, SC

v Executive Summary

Despite growing public and legislative nities manage the influx of drunk drivers The spectrum of correctional options support for jailing drunk drivers, not all into the correctional system in a safe, ranges from fines and unsupervised agree that this sanction is appropriate for equitable, and cost-effective manner. probation, on the one end, to incarcera­ the drunk driving offense (DWI). Some The subject of these manuals is two­ tion in secure facilities Gails and pris­ people see other solutions to the traffic fold: (1) the specialized needs of DWI ons) on the other. In wmparison with safety problem-better educated drivers, offenders, and (2) the special oppor­ other criminals, most drunk drivers are better roads, better cars; some believe tunities for maximizing the effectiveness classified as low-risk, non-violent drunk driving is primarily a health and minimizing the costs of their offenders who have no prior criminal problem and should be the province of correctional programs. history. For these types of offenders, health, not correctional, agencies; and correctional options other than secure some believe that our most restrictive THE JAIL PROBLEM incarceration can often be used to correctional facilities-prisons and restrict their freedom of movement and jails-are a scarce and expensive com­ Putting criminals in jail is only one of monitor their activities. As these man­ modity that should be used only for many correctional options. Moreover, uals point out, however, the public at offenders who cannot be safely confined increasing the size of local jails or large is often unaware of these options. or safely supervised in less restrictive building new ones is likely to be one of (and less costly) programs. the most expensive and difficult of the CHOICE OF SANCTIONS Nevertheless, in July 1984 the U.S. options available for managing drunk Congress passed a law-Public Law drivers. The Department of Justice Ideally, the choice of sanctions for 98-363-that encourages the States to estimates that it costs $43,000 per bed drunk drivers should take into account pass their own laws mandating specific to build a new jail. But building costs the sanction's effectiveness for reducing sentences for drunk driving: 48 hours in are only the tip of the iceberg. Operat­ alcohol-related traffic accidents and pre­ jail or 100 hours of community service ing expenses and salaries account for venting repetition of the offense (re­ for first offenders, and 10 days in jail 90% of the total cost of a typical jail. In cidivism) by those who have already for the second drunk driving offense. 1983 it cost an average of $9,500 a year been punished. Based on evidence to The 1983 Presidential Commission on to maintain an inmate in jail (although date, it would seem that a combination Drunk Driving and the Department of regional costs ran as high as $17 ,000 of sanctions is usually more effective for Transportation also recommend man­ per year). Add to these costs the combatting the drunk driving problem in datory sentences of 48 hours in jailor problems already faced by many jails­ a way that has positive long-term 100 hours of community service for the overcrowding, lack of personnel, lack of effects. The following overview high­ drunk driving offense. (The Presidential needed programs and services such as lights some of the sanctions discussed in Commission recommends this sentence suicide screening-and it is easy to these manuals. for the first DWI offense; Section 408 of understand why jailing the 1.9 million Little is known about the effec­ the Highway Traffic Safety Act recom­ DWIs arrested each year will impose tiveness of jail sentences as a deterrent mends it for the secolld DWI offense.) enormous new demands on correctional to drunk driving. For one thing, the jail Sixteen States now have legislation programs and services and the limited sanction rarely has been applied swiftly requiring jail or alternative sanctions for funds available to them. or consistently to drunk drivers. As a the first-offense drunk driver, and 41 In addition, most professionals in the result, researchers have not been able to States have laws requiring jail sentences criminal justice field, including the carry out comprehensive or long-term (from two days to six months) or other American Correctional Association, ad­ studies of this sanction's effectiveness sanctions for those found gUilty of DWI vocate for all offenders "the develop­ for controlling the DWI offense. The a second time. ment and use of the least restrictive most positive study available was con­ This series of publications was de­ sanctions, punishments, programs, and ducted in Hennepin County, Minnesota, veloped by the American Correctional facilities consistent with public safety and released in 1984 (Falkowski). The Association under contract with the and social order" (ACA National Cor­ study showed a 20% decline in the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin­ rectional Policy on Use of Appropriate number of nighttime crashes after im­ istration in an attempt to help commu- Sanctions and Controls, January 1984). position of a mandatory two-day sen-

vii tence for first-offense DWls. The extent jail overcrowding while providing useful munity-wide commitment of concem to which this decline was due to services to communities and a more and resources before, during, and after changed behavior on the part of the constructive penalty for non-violent the imposition of correctional sanctions: drunk drivers or to more careful driving offenders. Adequate law enforcement measures by the public in general is not known. Unlike many other criminals, most to improve the likelihood of apprehend~ We do know that from one-third to convicted drunk drivers are employed. ing drunk drivers and those driving with one-half of first-offense drunk drivers Many corrections professionals believe suspended or revoked driver's licenses. and almost all of those arrested two or that the most appropriate correctional (Without special law enforcement more times for drunk driving have a placement for low-risk, non-violent efforts, arrests are made for only lout health problem-problem drinking. drunk drivers is in work release centers of every 1,000 to 2,000 drunk drivers Short-term alcohol education programs or non-residential correctional programs on the highways.) for social drinkers and long-term (one (for example, intensive probation super­ Adequate procedures and resources year) treatment programs for problem vision) because these programs provide for the courts and corrections to ensure drinkers have proved effective in reduc­ supervision but also allow offenders to that all sanctions are imposed swiftly ing recidivism. National standards for continue earning incomes and therefore and consistently. good correctional practice recognize that help reduce the tax burden of their More precise traffic safety data col­ offenders with drug and alcohol abuse correctional programs. lection to accurately determine increases problems require specialized treatment. One sanction that has proved highly and declines in alcohol-related traffic In addition, experience shows that, effective in reducing alcohol-related traf­ accidents. along with driver's license actions, the fic accidents is license suspension or Adequate monies and talent to treatment sanction is the one most revocation. Studies show thf,[ even monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of feared and disliked by drunk drivers. though some drivers continue to drive any measures imposed to control drunk There is general agreement that drunk after their license has been suspended or driving, including their effect on driving offenders should pay fines and revoked, they drive fewer miles and recidivism. fees to cover as much of the costs of more carefully than they did before. Finally, experience has shown that their correctional and alcohol treatment While license actions are and should sustained public information campaigns programs as possible. Many feel that remain the responsibility of the State's to keep public consciousness about safe DWIs should also make restitution to motor vehicle department, it is impor­ driving practices at a high level and to the community, either directly to victims tant that communities include this sanc­ publicize new sanctioning policies is or through payments to general victim tion in their programs to combat drunk crucial to the success of any program to compensation funds. (Interestingly, most driving and that they allocate sufficient combat drunk driving. drunk drivers are not arrested as a result resources to law enforcement to raise of a traffic accident and therefore have the likelihood that the driver who drives SERIES OVERVIEW no victim.) with a suspended or revoked license is Interest in community service, both as detected. Volume I of this series (The Drunk an adjunct and as an alternative to Driver and the Jail Problem) focuses on incarcerating certain offenders, is developing a coherent policy for drunk ACTION STEPS FOR rapidly increasing. Use of this non­ drivers. It reviews the drunk driving COMMUNITIES residential sanctioning option is sup­ problem and the problems faced by ported by Federal recommendations on The variety of correctional options many of the Nation's 3,000 jails and drunk driving, and more than 20 States available-and their theoretical and test­ local lockups in dealing with the influx have established unpaid work on behalf ed effectiveness-point to the need for of DWI offenders. After describing of the community as an alternative to communities to take a comprehensive various approaches to controlling drunk short-term jail sentences for drunk approach to controlling drunk driving. driving and reviewing the evidence for drivers. Properly administered, com­ The correctional system cannot do it the effectiveness of jail sentences, the munity service programs offer the bene­ alone. Dealing successfully with the volume concludes with a list of specific fits of reducing correctional costs and drunk driver problem requires a com- considerations that should guide the viii development and operation of all correc­ Volume V (Resource Materials) con­ appropriate for drunk drivers. Similarly, tional programs for DWls. tains copies of documents and forms in facilities and programs developed prin­ Volume II (Alternatives to Jail) dis­ use in correctional programs around the cipally in response to the increased cusses the use of objective classification country. They are not official models arrest rates and tougher sanctions for systems to identify a drunk driver's but, rather, examples of "working docu­ drunk drivers can and should be used drinking status, risk to the community, ments" that might prove useful to for other types of low-risk, non-violent and correctional program needs. It then communities as they develop their own offenders, especially those with alcohol examines what is known about five non­ procedures and fonns. Included are problems. residential sanctions that can be used as examples of forms for classification and Readers seeking additional informa­ alternatives or adjuncts to a jail sen­ suicide risk screening; work release tion are encouraged to contact the tence: community service; intensive pro­ agreements and contracts; community following: bation supervision; alcohol education service forms and waivers of liability; 1. Stephen Hatos, National High­ and treatment; restitution; and driver's and overviews of alcohol education and way Traffic Safety Administra­ license actions. treatment programs. Also included are tion, 400 Seventh Street, SW, examples of State laws on offender fees Volume III (Options for Expanding Washington, DC 20590. Tele­ and infonnation on jail accreditation. phone (202) 426-9581 Residential Facilities) examines four The volume also contains a list of the 2. W. Hardy Rauch, American ways to increase available bed space State Offices of Highway Safety and the Correctional Association, 4321 (number of beds)--conventional con­ current criteria for receiving funding Hartwick Road, Suite L-208, struction, modular construction, renova­ under Section 402 of the Highway College Park, MD 20740. Tele­ tion, and contracting out correctional Safety Act. phone (301) 699-7660 programs-and compares the advantages It is important for readers to keep in and disadvantages of each approach. mind that, while the focus of these 3. Ray Nelson, National Institute Volume IV (Step by Step to a manuals is the drunk driver, it is not of Corrections Jail Center, 1790 Comprehensive DWI Program) describes intended that DWIs be placed in facili­ 30th Street, Suite 140, Boulder, how to go about determining a com­ ties or programs separate from other CO 80302. Telephone (303) munity's correctional needs (who should groups of offenders with similar needs 497-6700 be involved, what infonnation must be and characteristics. Judges and correc­ 4. Francis R. Ford, National Sher­ gathered) and discusses how to put the tional administrators need flexibility in iff's Association, 1450 Duke findings into effect (building community making appropriate assignments. Many Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. support, how to obtain funding). existing facilities and programs and Telephone (703) 836-7287

ix Glossary of Terms

ACA The American Correctional Asso­ DRUNK DRIVER Any driver operating NIC National Institute of Corrections. ciation. A national organization of cor­ a vehicle at an illegal blood alcohol An agency of the U.S. Department of rections professionals. concentration. The term does not imply Justice that provides assistance primarily that the driver obviously appears to be to the States and local communities. ACCIDENT Any event involving a "intoxicated." Drivers who appear quite moving vehicle on a public highway that sober can still be over the legal BAC NON-VIOLENT OFFENDER An indi­ causes injury or property damage. Some limit. vidual who has no record of violent experts prefer the word "crash" because behavior or aggression toward others; a it does not imply that the event was DWI As used in this manual, DWI is a person whose criminal record and con­ ~ccidental or "uncaused"-"A crash is generic term for all alcohol driving duct is such that he or she is not no accident." offenses. The terms "driving while intoxicated," "driving while under the considered to be prone to violent acts. "Violent crime" refers to crime such as influence," and "operating a motor BAC Blood alcohol concentration. Driv­ homicide, rape, assault, and robbery. ing with 0.10% BAC is an offense in all vehicle under the influence" are among States. Actual driving impairment oc­ those used by the States to describe the curs at lower (0.05%) BAC levels. major alcohol-related driving offense­ PONI "Planning of New Institutions." usually defined as operating a vehicle A program sponsored by the National with a blood alcohol concentration of Institute of Corrections to assist local COMMUNITY-BASED FACILITIES 0.10%. Some States have lesser of­ jurisdictions planning new detention Correctional facilities operated publicly fenses, usually described as "driving facilities. or privately (under contract) to hold while impaired," which defined blood persons to permit the offender limited alcohol concentration levels as low as opportunities for work, schooling, or 0.05%. PRISON A State or Federally operated other community contacts. Such facili­ detention facility, generally for offenders ties are used for a variety of purposes, INCARCERATION The confinement sentenced to one or more years of including specialized intervention or of a convicted criminal in a Federal or confinement. assistance (for example, drug or alcohol State prison or a local jail to serve a Maximum security prisons are treatment), graduated release from pris­ court-imposed sentence. In many States, typically surrounded by a double fence on-usually prior to parole-or as a offenders sentenced to less than one or wall (usually 18-25 feet high) with sanction in lieu of prison or jail year are held in a jail; those sentenced corrections officers in observation tow­ confinement. to longer terms are committed to the ers. Such facilities usually have large State prison. interior cell blocks for inmate housing CRIME The commission of an act that areas. About 41 % of the maximum is forbidden by public law and that JAIL A secure local detention facility security prisons were built before 1925. makes the offender punishable by that for holding individuals awaiting trial or Medium security prisons typ­ law. Crimes are classified into two sentencing. Increasingly, jails are also ically have double fences topped with categories: misdemeanors and felonies. used as places of confinement for barbed wire surrounding the facility. A misdemeanor is commonly defined as offenders sentenced to short terms (gen­ Housing architecture is quite varied, an offense that is punishable by less erally less than one year). consisting of outside cell blocks in units than one year in confinement. A felony of 150 cells or less, dormitories, and is a "major offense" that is punishable LOCKUP A holding facility for indi­ cubicles. More than 87% of the medium by one or more years in confinement. viduals who have been arrested and who security prisons were built aftel 1925. Although there is general agreement on are awaiting arraignment or transfer. Minimum security prisons typ­ the severity of offenses (murder, for Generally limited by law to holding an ically do not have armed posts and may example, is always considered a "major individual for only a few hours. or may not have fences to enclose the offense" and thus a felony), each State institution. To a large degree, housing retain.> the authority to decide ',.,hich NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safe­ consists of open dormitories. More than crimes it consideres misdemeanors and ty Administration. An agency of the 60% of the minimum security prisons which it considers felonies. U.S. Department of Transportation. were built llJter 1950.

xi Section 1 Getting Tough with Drunk Drivers

On November 9, 1984, the editorial Seattle, for example, the law was million injuries at a cost of more than pages of the Washington Post contained amended in 1980 to require that all $24 billion a year (estimate from the following observations on the effects those convicted of drunk driving Allstate Insurance Company available of the new, tough drunk driving legisla­ serve at least one day in jail. Before from NHTSA). Pools indicated the tion sweeping the country: that, only 9 percent had been incarce­ public was generally aware of the rated. Now, three judges have been dangers of drinking and driving. Most "Five years ago, a conviction for added to the six who had previously agreed that drunk driving laws should be drunk driving might have resulted in handled these cases. Jury trials have toughened. a fine, a warning or, in rare cases, a doubled, and the county has had to On the other hand, most drivers are suspension or revocation of a driver's open a new corrections facility to also drinkers-and most have driven at license. Those days are gone. Ap­ handle first offenders. Drunk drivers least once or twice, some many times, palled at the havoc caused by those now represent about 70 percent of the after using alcohoL Moreover, most who drink and drive, the public has probation-department caseload. drivers who drive after drinking do so demanded tougher treatment of "The public is willing to absorb successfully. Serious accidents are rare offenders, ::Ind across the country these costs because in the long run, it events. There are less than three fa­ legislatures and courts have re­ is expected that increased penalties talities in the United States for every sponded. Since 1981, more than 30 will have a deterrent effect. The NIJ 100 million miles driven (National States have enacted legislation aimed study is a useful document for Safety Council, 1982). Arrests for at this problem; most often these lesiglators and judges who, by care­ drinking and driving are also infre­ statutes increase penalties for drunk ful planning, might be able to avoid quent-<>nly one arrest for every 5,000 driving and many impose mandatory some of the problems that arose in miles of drunk driving (Voas, 1982b). jail sentences. In some jurisdic­ pioneer jurisdictions. Weekend sen­ Drinking and driving are thus part of tions-Minneapolis is one-judges tences, for example, were thought to the normal social life of most Amer­ have, by consensus, adopted these be a useful procedure for dealing icans. The personal experience of driv­ policies even in the absence of with offenders who could continue to ers leads them to believe that alcohol legislation. work and support families. In large and driving can be combined without "Putting the new rules into prac­ numbers, though, they are tremen­ significant risk to themselves or others. tice, howe\l.~r, creates difficulties for dously disruptive on the prison sys­ As a result, it is not surprising that courts and for corrections institu­ tem. Special provisions must be many people still feel that drinking and tions. The National Institute of Jus­ made for those with no prior criminal driving is not a serious crime. When tice has just released a study on the record, and treatment programs must Americans are asked to participate in impact of laws requiring mandatory be coordinated with penalties. Plan­ the justice systems as jurors in a drunk sentences for drunk driving. Arrests ning is important if these new laws, driving case, many share the feeling that increase when the new sanctions are enacted with such widespread public "there, but for the grace of God, go 1." publicized and so does public con­ support, are to be effective." (Edi­ This attitude of nonchalance carries cern. These changes produce exactly torial, The Washington Post, over into public attitudes toward traffic the right result: traffic fatalities de­ November 9, 1984) laws in general: cline. But courts have trouble keep­ ing up with the increased caseload. The Washington Post sums it up The violation rate is high because "A new legal specialty has arisen well .... motorists persistently teach each other in this field where, in the past, an that law obedience is both unneces­ attorney was often not necessary. Until the last few years, Americans sary and undesirable. Like white These experts command large fees to held very ambivalent views about drink­ collar criminals, motorists believe defend drivers facing mandatory jail ing and driving. On the one hand, it they are not criminals and, also like sentences. As a result, cases are was clear that drunk drivers were both white collar criminals, they insist on more often contested, and are there­ dangerous and expensive to the nation­ specialized criminal justice pro­ fore more lengthy and expensive. In causing 25,000 fatalities and half a cedures which will help ensure that

~~~ ------the criminal label is not attached to express their anger. It is "totally protecting the rights of the inmates held them. Such behavior and attitudes, incomprehensible," Dot Sexton said in these institutions. which make law violation into a that "our son died as the result of a The potential impact of DWI legisla­ harmless little game, certainly must senseless crime and the criminal is tion on local correctional systems can be contribute to a so-called "decline in not punished." (Gaylord Shaw, Los gauged from the fact that while there are law and order." (Donald Cressey, Angeles Times, November 3, 1981) currently about 200 thousand offenders "Law, Order, and the Motorist," Organizations such as MADD and in the nation's jails (DOJ, 1983a), an 1974, p. 233) RID have pushed for toughening the estimated 1.9 million pe.ople are arrested penalties for drunk driving in two major for drunk driving each year. As a result, Beginning about 1980, this publIc ways. First, through the organization of the wave of new laws requiring deten­ attitude began to change-at least with State task forces and the educating of tion of drunk drivers could make the respect to drunk driving. Citizen activist State legislators, they have succeeded in current overcrowding considerably groups-Mothers Against Drunk Driv­ promoting the passage of more severe worse. This is true even though the ing (MADD) and Remove Intoxicated penalties for drunk driving. Second, average detention period for the drunk Drivers (RID)-dramatized for the pub­ through a court-watch program, they driving offender is considerably shorter lic the personal meaning of the traffic have been effective in bringing about than the jail sentences given to other accident statistics. Typical of the stories changes in the judicial system, which in criminals. In Seattle, Washington, DWI brought to the public attention was that turn has resulted in increased penalties jail commitments rose from 26 a month of Tommie Sexton: for drunk driving offenders. in 1979 to 433 per month in 1982 (NIl, This movement has resulted in wider 1983) following the passage of a man­ On a summer day in 1980, Tom use of the jail sentence as a penalty for datory one-day jail sentence for first Sexton sat in a Southern Maryland drunk driving. In the last few years, offenders. Significantly, while more first courtroom and watched as defendants many States have not only increased the offenders were being jailed, the jail in criminal cases were called before length of jail sentences for second and sentences for multiple offenders were thp. judge. The first man was accused multiple DWI offenders, they have also also lengthened. of car theft. Two years in jail, the made these sentences mandatory. In PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL judge said. addition, there has been a movement to Then came the case of David pass legislation making a short (two- or This manual-along with the other William Watkins, Jr., the man ac­ three-day) jail sentence mandatory for four volumes in this series-is intended cused of killing Sexton's 15-year old first-offense drunk drivers. States that to assist local communities in handling son, Tommie. already have mandated jail sentences for the increasing numbers of driving-while­ A month earlier, Tommie Sexton DWI offenders are shown in Figure 1-1. intoxicated (DWI) offenders who will be and two friends were returning from In addition, several other State legis­ convicted under tougher drunk driving a fishing trip when Watkins' car latures are considering the passage of laws. swerved across the center line and such laws. This series of manuals should be smashed into theirs. Young Sexton This legislative trend promises to useful to the more then 3,000 sheriff's was killed and his friends injured. continue for the next several years. At departments that manage local jails and Watkins was unhurt and on this day the same time, there is a general other corrections officials who are re­ he pleaded guilty to homicide by increase in the public's demand for sponsible for handling convicted drunk motor vehicle while intoxicated. The tough law enforcement and increasing drivers. It is these officials who need to judge placed him on two years' the penalties for all types of crime. A take the lead in bringing before the probation and fined him $200. result is the potential for a major crisis public the problems created by the large Tom Sexton and his wife were in local correctional systems. Many of influx of drunk drivers into an already stunned. A car thief gets two years in the systems are already strained by overcrowded correctional system. jail; the man who killed their son overcrowded detention facilities, on the These manuals should also be useful pays a $200 fine and goes free. one hand, and. on the other, by the to judges and officers of the court who Today, they still grope for words to increasing interest of the courts in are responsible for sentencing and for

2 Figure 1-1 States with Mandatory Jail Sentences for DW!s (As of January 1, 1985)

Jail sentences for first DWI offense (hours)

G Alaska

G.;J HawaII

• Indicates hours to be served consecutively; 24 hours equals 1 day.

Jail sentences for second DWI offense (d~ys)

~ A!aska

• Indicates days to be served consecutively; 1 day equals 24 hours Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

3

L-______.------~~ ------~ assigning offenders to the programs and providecl assistance in the following program alternatives, and sources of facilities available for handling them. ways: assistance. The manuals also contain information • To help communities better rec­ • To help highway safety, legis­ that should be of interest to treatment ognize the implications of legislation lative, and criminal justice officials staff and educational program specialists mandating jail sentences for dmnk avoid problems that have arisen in other who provide service.; to offenders, drivers. communities by sharing information. particularly those with alcohol-abuse • To help communities assess their • To suggest how other elements problems. current correctional programs and facili­ of a comprehensive drunk driving deter­ Finally, these manuals are intended ties in order to determine whether they rence effort (such as treatment) can be for use by co,nmunity task forces, can adequately handle increased num­ integrated with other sanctions into a citizen's groups, and local and State bers of DWls. comprehensive local program for drunk legislators concerned with the drunk • To assist communities in the drivers so that the total DWI control driver and/or the local correctional development of new programs and facil­ system becomes more effective. system. ities, if they are required, by providing This series of manuals is intended to information on planning procedures,

4 Section 2 The Drunk Driver Problem

At the tum of the century, the principal Figure 2-1- Summary of Statistics Related to the National Drunk Driving cause of death for young people was Problem infectious disease. Progress in public health in the early part of this century has all but wiped out communicable • A quarter of a million people have died in alcohol-related auto crashes in the diseases within the United States as a past decade. source of death for young people. This • More than 25,000 people are killed each year in alcohol-related crashes. has left accidental death and injury as the major public health problem for • About 500 people are killed each week in alcohol-related crashes. children and young adults. Although considerable success has • Nearly 70 people are killed every day in alcohol-related crashes. been achieved in reducing accidents in the work place, the rapid growth in the • One person dies every 21 minutes in an alcohol-related auto crash. use of the automobile has frustrated • 650,000 persons are injured in alcohol-related auto crashes each year. efforts to significantly reduce per-capita motor vehicle deaths. The per-capita • 125,000 persons are permanently injured in alcohol-related crashes each death rate from motor vehicle crashes year. was 25 per 100,000 residents at the beginning of the Depression (1929-39) • One million drunk driving collisions occur each year. and was still 22 per 100,000 in 1981. During that time, however, highway • More than 50% of all fatal highway crashes involving two or more cars are safety efforts were successful in reduc­ alcohol related. ing the death rate per vehicle mile. From 1930 to 1983, the death rate per • More than 65% of all fatal single car crashes are alcohol-related. 100 million vehicle miles dropped from • An estimated one out of every two Americans will be involved in an alcohol­ 18.2 to 2.7. But, while vehicles and related crash in their lifetime. roadways are safer, the tremendous growth in travel has kept the per-person • Alcohol-related crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans risk of injury unchanged since the 1930s between 16 and 24 years of age. (National Safety Council, 1984). • Young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are involved in 44% of all The failure to reduce the population nighttime fatal alcohol-related crashes, but make up only 22% of the total death rate, despite a rapidly declining licensed population and account for only 24% of the total vehicle miles mileage death rate, illustrates the diffi­ traveled by licensed drivers. culty of managing the highway safety problem in this country. Our nation is • 36% of all adult pedestrian accidents involve an intoxicated pedestrian. one of rapidly growing wealth in which • The motor vehicle crash is the number one cause of death for all Americans larger and larger segments of the up to the age of 35 (and more than 50% of these fatal crashes involve drunk population are driving. Despite safer drivers). vehicles and safer roadways, highway accidents have remained a major source • 80% of all fatal alcohol-related crashes occur between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. of death and injury because of the • On an average, by 12 midnight on a typical weekend night, one out of every increasing number of vehicles and their ten drivers is legally impaired or drunk. greater use for travel and recreation. • Of every 2,000 drunk drivers, only one is arrested (and the chance of This is particularly true for the younger receiving a serious penalty is statistically insignificant). members of our society who have more money to spend on automobiles. Figure 2-1 summarizes the disturbing statistics. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (n.d.,b)

5 ACCIDENT CAUSES of individuals who have consumed convincing source of evidence for re­ alcohol demonstrate that even very small searchers, are the epidemiologic studies Alcohol has been recognized as a amounts of this drug significantly affect in which the amount of drinking is significant factor in motor vehicle deaths performance. One of the critical driving measured by blood alcohol content and injuries since the beginning of the skills affected by alcohol is the ability (BAC). By comparing the BAC of century. Initially, it was the behavior of to divide attention, to keep a vehicle drivers in accidents with the BAC of drivers involved in accidents that called lined up on the road while watching out drivers who were using the roadway at attention to the role of alcohol. This for traffic. the same time and place but were not evidence was sufficiently strong to A second source of evidence for the accident-involved, these studies have persuade most States to adopt drunk­ role of alcohol comes from studies of demonstrated that a driver with an driving laws during the second decade drivers operating driving simulators or ilIegal BAC (.10%) is approximately six of the century. New York had such a automobiles on closed (safe) courses. times more likely than a sober driver to law in 1910, and by 1924 the drinking These studies have demonstrated that be responsible for an accident. More­ problem was regarded as sufficiently alcohol significantly impairs a person's over, the risk increases as the amount of serious to lead Connecticut to jail 254 ability to respond to emergencies. alcohol increases, as shown in drunk drivers. Research on the drunk The third, and probably the most Figure 2-2. driving problem began before World War II, principally in Europe. The Figure 2·2 Relation Between Blood Alcohol Concentration and development of blood and breath tests Accident Involvement for determining alcohol consumption not 35 .------._---. only stimulated related research; it im­ 35 proved the methods by which drunk driving laws could be enforced (Voas, .... 1982b). c 30 CIl Most accidents have multiple causes. "0 '0 The drunk driver who fails to negotiate 0 til 25 a turn, skids out, and hits a tree on the c 25 shoulder of the road has been involved til cCl • Drivers with a BAC in an accident that has several contribut­ 'iii ::::I of .15% are 25 times ing factors: the driver's drunkenness, the til 20 20 curve in the road, the wet pavement, ....0 more likely to be and the tree. 0 involved in traffic The fact that more than one factor ~ 15 accidents than drivers :0 produces accidents is significant for at til who have not been .0 least two reasons. First, it suggests that ...0 drinking accidents can be reduced in a number of a. CIl 10 ways-by straightening the road or '.jJ> til i l!moving trees from the shoulder as 'iii well as by deterring the drunk driver. a: 5 Second, the presence of more than one factor frequently leads to controversies about the extent to which any single factor (such as alcohol) "causes" acci­ dents. .00 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20% Evidence for the causal role of .15 alcohol in accidents comes from three Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) basic sources. First, laboratory studies Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (n.d.,b)

6 WHO IS MOST INVOLVED IN tested in approximately 15 States and greater role in the more serious and fatal DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENTS? tested less frequently in the remaining crashes than in less severe accidents. 35 States. Drivers who are involved in The losses to society produced by these Men do approximately 60% of the injury or property-damage-only acci­ accidents in which alcohol is a factor driving in the United States. Men also dents are rarely tested for alcohol unless are extensive. In addition to direct drink more alcohol than women. It is the police makes a drunk driving arrest medical costs and property losses, auto­ not surprising, therefore, that they are in connection with the accident. mobile accidents produce extensive costs more likely than females to be involved Despite these limitations in the data, due to loss of earning power, time away in drunk driving crashes. Studies indi­ extensive studies have given a reason­ from the job, rehabilitation, and so on. cate that approximately 90% of the ably firm basis for estimating the role of When all of these are considered, the drinking drivers in fatal accidents are alcohol in highway crashes. A recent loss due to drunk driving accidents male and more than 90% of the estimate by the National Highway Traf­ appears to be approximately $21 to $24 individuals arrested for drunken driving fic Safety Administration, National Cen­ billion per year (estimate from Allstate in most communities are male (NHTSA, ter for Statistics and Analysis, shown in Insurance Company; available from 1984). As shown in Figure 2-3, younger Figure 2-4, indicates that alcohol plays a NHTSA). men are more likely to be involved in fatal alcohol-related accidents than are middle-aged and older drivers (Fell, Figure 2-3 Age and Alcohol Involvement of Drivers in Fatal 1983). Studies of the backgrounds of drivers Accidents in alcohol-related accidents and drivers arrested for drunk driving indicate that a 9 large portion are very heavy drinkers II Alcohol involved and have a history of alcohol problems. 8 As part of the Alcohol Safety Action o Alcohol not involved J!l c Project programs sponsored by the c ell Federal Government in the '70s, well ~ 'E: 7 '0 'tJ over 100,000 arrested drunk drivers (,) third problem drinkers, and another > c: 't: 0 4 third somewhere in between (Nichols et -0:.::: aI., 1978). oE 3 The Federal Government maintains a 03 .0.-8 census of all fatal accidents-the Fatal E .... ::J ell 2 Accident Reporting System (FARS). It zOo also maintains a sampling system, the National Accident Sampling System (NASS), which can project the numbers of injury and property-dam age-only ac­ cidents. However, the precise number of these crashes that involve a drunk driver Age of driver is not known because not all drivers in accidents are tested for alcohol. Drivers who die in fatal accidents are routinely Source: Fell (1983)

7 Figure 2-4- Alcohol Involvement in Accidents 1979-1982 (Annual frequently than those who have not been Average) drinking.

No. & Percent 3. Reducing Exposure to Drunk Alcohol-Related Driving Accidents Teenage drivers are particularly sus­ Fatal Accidents (from FARS) 43,340 19,936 (46%) ceptible to drunk driving accidents Serious Injury Accidents 145,000 55,000 (38%) because they drive on weekend nights All Injury Accidents 2,283,000 457,000 (20%) when such accidents are most frequent All Accidents 5,825,000 757,000 (13%) and, at a given blood alcohol con­ Source: NHTSA National Accident Sampling System, 1982. centration, they are at greater risk of being involved ir, an accident. One method of reducing this risk is to limit SIX METHODS FOR REDUCING be apprehended is low. Most studies of sales of alcohol to those aged 21 or THE DRUNK DRIVING PROBLEM enforcement indicate that an arrest older. This approach is receiving consid­ occurs in only one out of every 250 to erable interest. A number of States have While this manual is concerned with 2,000 drunk driving trips. It appears to raised their drinking age, and the U.S. the role of the criminal justice system in be necessary to drive 5,000 miles drunk Congress recently passed legislation reducing drunk driving-and particularly in the United States in order to be providing an incentive to States to pass the role of corrections-there are at least arrested for drunk driving! (Yoas, age-21 drinking laws. six basic approaches to controlling this 1982b) As to the swiftness and severity problem. Some highway safety research 4. Health Care Programs of the penalty, the courts have, in the specialists (Ross, 1984, for example) past, experienced delays in adjudicating One-third to two-thirds of the drivers believe that some of these alternatives DWI cases and have encountered con­ involved in fatal accidents or arrested offer better opportunities for reducing siderable difficulty in applying tough for drunk driving are problem drinkers. the drunk driving problem than do sanctions (Section 5). As a result, considerable interest has criminal justice programs. All six alter­ been shown in alcoholism treatment as a natives are discussed below. 2. Vehicle and Roadway Engineering drunk driving sanction. As described in 1. Criminal Justice Programs Programs Section 7, efforts to reduce drunk driving through alcohol treatment have By far the most popular method for Making roads and cars safer reduces shown some limited effectiveness. dealing with the drunk driver is through the risk of accidents for both passengers the criminal justice system. Increasing and drivers, whether drunk or sobel: 5. Public Information and Education awareness of the drunk driving problem Therefore, many safety experts argue Programs has led most States to enact new, that this should be the principal ap­ tougher DWI laws. Most of this legisla­ proach to reducing the drunk driving A good public information program is tion is. based on the concept of produc­ problem. Some engineering efforts may an important support to drunk driving ing "general deterrence" to dnnking and be especially significant for drunk driv­ enforcement programs. Simply inform­ driving. The extent to which drunk ers. For example, it has been shown that ing the public about the dangers of drivers will be deterred is believed to wider markings along the edges of roads mixing alcohol and driving without depend upon three factors-the per­ are particularly helpful in keeping drunk increasing law enforcement effort is ceived sureness, the swiftness. and the drivers from running off the road. rarely effective, however. While these severity of the penalty for those who Similarly, passive restraint systems, programs can significantly improve the drive while intoxicated. The sureness is which automatically cushion a vehicle's public's knowledge regarding alcohol, primarily dependent on the effectiveness occupants, may be particularly helpful driving and the drunk driving laws, they of the enforcement effort. Unfortunately, to drunk drivers since studies indicate have rarely been shown in and of the probability that a drunk driver will that they buckle their safety belts less themselves to reduce drunk driving

8 behavior. Their relative ineffectiveness Figure 2-5- Primary Elements of a Comprehensive Community-Based in the past may be due in part to the Program to Control Drunk Driving-National Highway Traffic Safety fact that a large portion of drunk drivers Administration have a drinking problem and are not likely to be changed by a public 1. General Deterrence Approach (Short-term)-Creating a public perception of infonnation program. increased risk of arrest for drunk driving. This approach is designed to deter the majority of drunk drivers who are never arrested, in addition to "treating" 6. Systems Approach the few who are. A final approach taken to the problem 2. Community Focus-Placing program emphasis and responsibility at the of reducing dnmk driving stresses the locallevet. need to develop a comprehensive pro­ 3. Systems Approach-Integrating and coordinating law enforcement, prosecu­ gram at the community level for dealing tion, sentencing, correctional services and facilities, education/treatment, with the drunk driver. Because of the public information/education, and driver licensing functions at the local and relatively low arrest rate and the diffi­ State level. culty in applying tough sanctions, this approach emphasizes the need to de­ 4. Programs Funded by the Offenders-Assessing fines, court costs, velop an infrastructure at the community treatment, tuition fees, etc., to convicted drunk drivers to defray the costs of level that will ensure a strong and local/community programs. coordinated criminal justice system and 5. Citizen Support-Generating community/citizen support for comprehensive provide a base for continuing public community programs. education on alcohol safety. 6. Prevention (Long-term)-Changing societal attitudes toward drinking and NO EASY ANSWERS driving through long-term prevention/education programs. The lack of past success in controlling 7. Occupant Protection-Programs to increase usage of seat belts, child safety the drunk driving problem has made seats, and similar protective systems; increasing awareness of safety belts clear to safety experts, and particularly as our best personal protection against the drunk driver. to government agencies, that significant Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1985 reduction of this problem will take considerable time and effort. There are no quick fixes, no silver bullets. But the problem is not intractable. Even though the underlying causes are complex and difficult to overcome, considerable pro­ gress can be made if public opinion is mobilized and the best use is made of current research on the problem. The Federal Government, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin­ istration, is currently emphasizing a community-level, systematic approach to the problem. This approach is sum­ marized in Figure 2-5.

9 Section 3 The Jail Problem

BACKGROUND Community-based facilities include pliance with program goals. These residential work release centers and facilities are also frequently operated by Correctional facilities are generally clas­ halfway houses in which offenders private groups under contract. sified in two ways: (1) by the level of reside under supervision but are released The growth of the American prison government that operates them (Federal, for a portion of each day to work or population for the last half-century is State, or loca!), and (2) by the degree of participate in other programs. These shown in Figure 3-1. The average security provided (maximum, medium, facilities generally have few of the number of adult prisoners incarcerated minimum, non-secure). But buildings security features that typify prisons and in Federal and State prisons has grown are only a part of the total corrections jails. They are frequently operated by steadily, reaching 180 per 100,000 system. The total system usually in­ private concerns under contract to a population in 1983 (DOJ, 1983a). On cludes non-residential as well as residen­ governmental agency. Offenders are the average, the incarceration rate in tial programs. Thus a comprehensive sometimes sentenced to non-residential local jails was considerably lower, as correctional program includes such non­ community service and treatment cen­ shown in Figure 3-2. residential services as probation, parole, ters. The offender's attendance at these By the end of the 1970s, the community service, and specialized pro­ work or treatment programs is super­ Department of Justice estimated that gram facilities. vised by facility staff to ensure com- approximately 2Y2 million persons were The term prison is generally applied to facilities constructed and operated at the Federal and State level. Most inmates in prisons are serving sentences of more than one year. Figure 3-1 Growth of U.S. Prison Population 1930-1982 The term jail is generally applied to county or local facilities. Jails typically hold individuals awaiting trial (accused offenders) as well as adjudicated offend­ 400 The number of persons in prison was 412,000 ers who are awaiting sentencing or who in 1982, an alltime high have been sentenced to short terms (less than one year). They may also hold Federal and State prisoners who are 300 waiting to be transferred to another I!! Q.l Vietnam War facility or who are being housed locally c: for one of several administrative rea­ 0 decline .!!l..... sons. In contrast to prisons, local jails a. WWII are relatively small. According to the "Cc: 200 co Department of Justice (1984), 18% of Ul ::J 0 U.S. jail capacity is in facilities with ..c less than 50 beds, while another 37% is I- in jails with less than 250 beds. Many 100 local police departments also operate lockups or holding facilities to hold individuals who have been arrested pending their arraignment or transfer to OL-~~ ______~ ______~ ______L- ______d- ______~ another facility. The holding periods are short (generally less than 48 hours), and 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 some States limit the time an individual Source: Prisoners in State and Federal Instill/lions on December 31, 1982. can be held in these facilities to as little as 24 hours. Source: U.S. Department of Justice (1983a)

11 under some form of correctional sented 1.2% of all adults over the age of jails, and 1Y2 million under probation or custody. Half a million of these were 18 and included 350,000 adults in State parole supervision. As shown in Figure juveniles. The two million adults repre- and Federal prisons, 150,000 in local 3-3, by the end of 1982, there were

Figure 3-2 Incarceration Rate in local Jails by Jurisdiction (June 30, 1983) (Rate per 100,000 resident population)

57

:::: Alaska 8"

• Five states-Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, 0 0-49 and Vermont-had integrated jail-prison systems and were ex­ [] 50-99 cluded from the report. 5] 100-174 •• Alaska had five locally operated jailS In addition to an Inte­ 175 or more grated jail-prison system. This figure is for local jails only, •

Source: U.S. Department of Justice (1984)

12 Figure 3-3 Adults Under Correctional Supervision But the status of U.S. prisons is not at Year-End 1982 without significance, for as prisons become overcrowded, their overflow tends to back up into local jails. A recent survey (Sapp, 1984) of 48 of the 50 States found 83% of the States reporting inmate populations exceeding the design capacity of their prison facilities. The remaining States reported Prison 412,303 inmate populations ranging from 95% to 19% 100% of capacity; however, several of these reported significant backlogs of sentenced prisoners awaiting transfer from county jails. For those States Probation whose inmate populations exceeded de­ 1,335,359 sign capacity, the average excess was 61% 31.6%. One indication of the impact of this overcrowding at the local level is the number of State prisoners held in local jails (DOJ, 1983a). This is shown in Figure 3-4. Another symptom of the prison crowding problem is the numbers of State systems that have come under court order to reduce their populations or improve their conditions of confinement. State correctional systems are at­ Source: Gavin (1983) tempting to deal with overcrowding in a number of ways. Plans for new con­ struction are extensive. According to 208,000 persons in local jails and are also establishing "satellite jails" and Vonier (1984), States are planning 412,303 persons in State and Federal work release centers that operate very 60,000 additional prison beds by 1986, prisons. Of particular interest is that the similarly to halfway houses. The exact with 65% of these planned for max­ majority of offenders still are under number of people currently housed in imum security facilities at an average supervision in the community, serving such facilities is not known. cost of $80,000 per bed. terms of parole or probation. According to the Sapp survey (1984), In 1979. there were 223 community­ 83% of the 48 State prison systems had THE OVERCROWDING PROBLEM based facilities (halfway houses or work plans for new construction, 69% were release centers). These facilities housed T;l(; "tatus of State and Federal prison using more community-based facilities. approximately 4% (11.000) of the populations is generally not of immedi­ and 58% were adding bed space by offenders sentenced to State prison ate interest to those concerned with the converting or renovating existing prison systems (DOl. 1983a). The number of drunk driving problem because few buildings. Of the States responding, community facilities is undoubtedly DWIs are sentenced to prison. This is 46% also indicated that they were using greater today because of the increased because the populations in those facili­ temporary housing. and 42% that they use of contract facilities by the States ties are usually limited to offenders who were converting non-prison propenies to and the Federal Government. Localities receive sentences of more than one year. detention use. In addition to these

13 Figure 3-4- State Prisoners Held in Local Jails one State reports a reduction in the Because of Crowding number of paroles revoked for technical violations. Finally, under the pressure of litiga­ State 1983 1982 1981 tion and court orders, several States Total 8,078 8,689 6,900 have passed legislation dealing directly Alabama 1,001 1,113 1,472 with overcrowding. Michigan has en­ California 1,244 1,090 600 acted an emergency prison powers act Colorado 211 8244 0 that automatically triggers a reduction of Florida 0 295 287 prison terms and greater use of local Illinoisb 86 0 0 jails when the State prisons are filled to Kentucky a.c244 a162 104 capacity. Minnesota has a similar law Louisiana 2,299 1,499 793 that establishes sentencing guidelines to Maine 75 61 24 ensure that the State's prison popUlation Maryland 82 67 71 does not exceed capacity (DOl, 1983a). Massachusetts a2 a8 7 Michigan 0 7 43 EFFECTS OF OVERCROWDING Mississippi 1,006 1,020 1,147 Montana 0 0 1 Overcrowding has serious impacts on New Jerseya 967 1,584 995 correctional programs and services. Dis­ New Mexico 0 2 2 cipline, food service, visitation, sanita­ Oklahoma 0 0 48 tion, laundry, and security are all South Carolina 514 498 549 negatively affected. Inmates are double­ Tennessee 8 186 219 and triple-celled. Gymnasiums, day Utah 55 6 29 rooms, and even hallways can become Vermontd 7 11 0 dormitories. Recreational yards and Virginia 246 643 485 other group spaces are always crowded. Washington 28 28 24 Because crowding reduces staff contact Wisconsina 3 165 0 as well as the space and materials available for rehabilitative efforts, edu­ aN at included in official prison count. bHouses 18 of the reported 86 inmates in Nevada facilities, cation and treatment programs tend to CFigures are for 12/28/83. become less effective. dA combined jaillprison system; houses inmates in lockups to aileviate overcrowding. Overcrowding also has a significant °Houses 276 inmates in other State, Federal, and county facilities because of overcrowding. impact on staff. Staff members tend to Source: American Correctional Association (1984a) become more overworked and to find themselves committing more and more time to purely custodial functions and efforts to increase available space, J 9% in prison. Placing offenders into inten­ less to more professional and re­ of the 48 States reported that they had sive probation supervision programs (de­ habilitative activities. Crowding also increased their furlough programs to scribed in Volume II) is another option strains a facility's security, increasing reduce their inmate populations; 17% of being explored as an alternative to the risks to both staff and inmates. the respondents were limiting intake as a confinement in State facilities. Other Opportunities for inmates to participate response to overcrowding. innovative approaches reported by States in work programs and education and Other types of action taken by States include the increased use of work camps vocational training decline. The result­ to reduce overcrowding include in­ (for forestry, conservation, and fire ing idleness, together with the effects of creases in "good time" or earned work fighting programs). States have also crowding, affects inmates both phys­ credits to shorten the actual time served reviewed their parole r~gulations, and ically and emotionally.

14 All of these factors increase the stress The costs of operating jails increased relevance to the drunk driving problem for personnel already working in a high­ more rapidly than inflation. The annual because most of these facilities are stress field and exacerbate the tensions operating expenditure per inmate, ad­ operated by the same department (sher­ already present in any situation where justed for inflation, rose by two-thirds iff or police) that is responsible for people are confined against their will. from $5,600 per year ($15 per day) in general law enforcement. Ninety percent An overcrowded facility can become a 1969 to $9,400 per year ($26 per day) of county jails are the responsibility of a powder keg of resentments, fears, and in 1983. Significant variations in operat­ local sheriff who is generally also hostilities just waiting to be ignited. ing costs occurred from region to region responsible for law enforcement, includ­ Many State governments are begin­ of the country. (In the Northeast, the ing traffic law enforcement, within the ning to come to grips with this problem. cost was $46 per day compared to $20 county. The personnel and other re­ Meanwhile, overcrowding at the State per day in the South. The States with sources committed to operating these level often backs up into local jails the highest costs (Alaska and New York, local jails are necessarily not available where the capability of counties and $67 per day) spent four times more than for enforcing drunk driving and other urban communities to provide additional the States with the lowest costs (Georgia laws. One possible effect of overcrowd­ bed space is also limited. and South Carolina, $15 per day). ing at the local level, then, is that it can Overall, national expenditures on local reduce the level of effort available for PROBLEMS OF LOCAL JAILS jails were $2.7 billion, with 21% ($600 direct enforcement. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ, million) going to capital expenses and The NSA survey found that 10% of 1984) reports that a record 223,551 79% ($2.1 billion) to operating the 1,688 jails surveyed were built in persons were being held in local jails in expenses. the 19th century. Many, if not most, of June 1983. * This was a 41 % increase A survey conducted in 1982 by the these jails do not meet the minimum over the last census conducted five years National Sheriff's Association (Kerle standards required by recent court inter­ before in February 1978. In the same and Ford, 1982) indicated that approx­ pretations of the Constitution. The per­ time period, the rate of detention in imately 20% of the country's sworn cent of jails in the NSA survey that had local jails rose 29% from 76 per police officers alternate between jail specially designated space for various 100,000 population in 1978 to 98 per duties and patrol. This, of course, is types of programs and services is shown 100,000 in 1983. The survey indicated a more typical of smaller counties and in Figure 3-5. Note that only one in four trend toward fewer, but larger jails. The communities than of large urban centers had recreational facilities, and only one­ number of U.S. jails decreased 4%, that can afford separate departments. In third had space for medical services. from 3,493 in 1978 to 3,338 in 1983, some areas, sheriffs' deputies who act as Of particular significance to the drunk despite the 41 % increase in inmates. jail officers receive lower pay than patrol driving problem is the fact that only one The change by size of jail is shown officers. The NSA survey indicated that, in eight jails had a drunk tank. While below: of 1,688 local jails surveyed, 1, 185 paid 34 States have decriminalized public Percent Percent their patrol officers more than their jail drunkenness, many communities have in 1978 in 1983 officers, 467 paid the same to both failed to provide detoxification centers. Small jails (capacity groups, and 36 paid patrol officers less. As a result, many drunks still wind up less than 50) 67 63 Overall, the average salary for a jail in jail for their own protection (Whit­ Medium-size jails officer was $10,780, compared to ford, 1983). While drunk drivers require (capacity 50-249) 28 30 $12,544 for a patrol officer. Kerle and detoxification treatment less frequently Large jails (capacity Ford suggest that, among other reasons, than public inebriates, some still require more than 250) 5 7 such differentials are undesirable be­ close watching to assure that they cause they raise the possibility that receive medical attention if needed and *The survey does not include Connecticut. patrol officers who are performing un­ to prevent suicide attempts. This re­ Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island. and Vermont, satisfactorily may be penalized by being quires special cells that can be continu­ which have combined prison-jail systems. It also assigned jail duties. ously observed by the officer on duty, does not include holding facilities that do not detain persons after they are formally charged in The problems of county jails and but such facilities appear to be absent in court. local holding facilities have special many jails. 15 Figure 3-5- Local Jails with Space Specifi­ local jails report that they house inmates cally Designated for Programs and from other counties; this is usually Services described as a temporary measure (Kerle and Ford, 1982). The 1983 jail census Total Number of Jails Reporting: 2,664 (DOJ, 1984) indicated that approx­ imately 3% of all jail inmates were # of being held because of crowding Functional Area Jails ~ercent elsewhere. Three out of 4 of these were Drunk Tank 338 12.7 offenders held for State authorities. The extent to which local jails are in Library 682 25.6 trouble is indicated in part by the extent to which they are the targets of Contact Visiting 742 27.9 litigation. The 1982 NSA survey indi­ Outdoor cated that 16% of local jails had been Recreation 762 28.6 under a court order in the past and that 4% currently were under such orders. Dining Room 475 17.8 Figure 3-7 lists the reasons for the Counseling/ existing court orders. In addition, 20% Education 778 29.2 of the jails responding to the survey reported they were facing a pending law Indoor Recreation 676 25.4 suit. Day Room 1,198 45.0 Many small jails cannot meet even the minimum security requirements of Vocational 190 7.1 24-hour supervision. Important services, Medical Service 936 35.1 such as screening newly arrived offend­ ers and observation of those who need Conjugal special attention because of their propen­ Visitation 157 5.9 sity for victimization or suicide, cannot Source: Kerle and Ford (1982) be adequately provided. Jail admin-

Jail overcrowding, a major factor in Figure 3-6- Percent of Occupied Capacity, U.S. Jails 1983 litigation, is most evident in the largest jails. The American Correctional Asso­ Number of Percent of Available ciation recommends that jail populations Inmates Capacity Occupied not exceed 90% of available capacity in <50 50-249 >250 All order that there be reserve space for special needs such as special police U.S. Total 221,815 52% 76% 96% 81% crackdowns, alternate space when jail repairs are required, additional space to Northeast 36,270 77% 89% 97% 94% house sick or violent inmates, etc. North Central 39,176 51% 70% Figure 3-6 shows that, on an average, 96% 74% large jails with capacities above 250 South 88,571 52% 72% 90% 75% have occupancy rates above 90%. West 57,627 The principal source of inmates for 50% 87% 102% 92% local jails is, of course, the local community itself. However, half of the Source: U.S. Department of Justice, The 1983 Jail Census. (1984)

16 Figure 3-7- Basis for Court Orders Against Local Jails istrators also face the problem of dealing with antiquated facilities that lack some Total Number of Jails Reporting: 2,664 of the minimum services required by the courts and compound the difficulties of BASIS FOR COURT ORDER NUMBER PERCENT handling offenders. Jails, unlike prisons, are also faced Medical 164 6.2 with holding individuals who, while Crowded Conditions 209 7.8 arrested, have not been tried or sen­ tenced. Approximately 50% of the Recreation 206 7.7 individuals being held in local jails are Food 102 3.8 in pre-trial status. The courts have decreed that detainees retain all rights Personal Hygiene 93 3.5 not inconsistent with the need for Classification 133 5.0 supervision to assure their court ap­ pearance. They have a basis for special Structure 181 6.8 consideration with regard to their safety. Visitation 158 5.9 They also have the right to maintain maximum contact with their families, Health Area 94 3.5 frien -'s, and legal counsel, as well as Suicides 26 1.0 access to normal recreation opportunities and medical treatment. It is an anomaly Mentally III 47 1.8 of the system that people who are arrested for alcohol and drug impair­ Staffing 102 3.8 ment are generally held in the facilities Fire Hazards 111 4.2 (small jails and lockups) least able to meet their special needs for health Other 104 3.9 services and supervision. Source: Kerle and Ford (1982)

17 -~ ------~

Section 4 Jail Violence

"Kevin, a 20-year-old student from While that may be an overstatement, (Nacci and Kane, 1984). Upper Marlboro, was arrested on a Kevin's case poses a particular difficulty While many assaults end in rape, it is drunk driving charge at 3 a.m., Feb. for local jails. Such attacks occur during not clear that the initial orientation is 20 and taken to the Prince George's the time between arrest and arraign­ sexual. Forcible rape may give the County Detention Center. He was to ment, usually in a holding facility attacker status among other inmates wait there for a few hours, until his operated by a sheriff's department or the within the jail community. It is also a mother could arrive with $50 to bail police. The survey by Kerle and Ford way of degrading a potential enemy. him out. But his mother came too (1982) indicated that about 1 in 4 of the Violent inmates may make overtures and late. nation's jails has less than 16 beds and put pressure upon potential targets for "While Kevin was behind bars, that 1 in 10 jails are not supervised 24 favors of all kinds, including sex (Nacci two inmates grabbed him and shoved hours a day. Yet, prevention of violence and Kane, 1984). him into a cell, out of sight of the depends on the ability to identify and A recent study on prison victimization guards. For 10 minutes, they slugged separate potential victims from their noted that white prisoners are often him in the stomach and beat him on attackers and to provide adequate super­ victimized by blacks. The author the face. Then one of them exposed vision. In tum, these requirements continued: himself, tore his pants, and de­ ultimately depend on the funding manded that Kevin give him and four provided for corrections and law Prisoners who are raped differ from of his friends oral sex. enforcement. their rapists in more than their racial "When it was allover, Kevin went To prevent violence, jail admin­ heritage. They are also more likely to to the jail's medic with blood pouring istrators need to establish a system to be middle class, young, inex­ from his face, arms and chest. His identify potentially violent offenders and perienced, convicted of minor proper­ nose was broken and he had two those with a high potential for being ty offenses, and slight of build. In black eyes. victimized so that steps can be taken to the prison environment, men with "An hour later, about noon, his ensure they are separated. The problem these characteristics are perceived as mother paid the bail bondsman and for detention centers is that relatively being rather feminine. From the Kevin was released ...." little is known about new arrivals. What viewpoint of the rapist, nothing could is known is usually not sufficient to be more natural than "making a -Loretta Tofani, The Washington identify potentially dangerous inmates woman" out of someone who already Post, September 26, 1983 with a high degree of accuracy. There has characteristics of a woman. are, therefore, no substitutes for suffi­ (Bowker, 1980, p. 11) It is not surprising that violence is a cient space to separate inmates and for major problem for jails in the United sufficient personnel to monitor the jail Lockwood (1978) found that only States. We require our corrections facili­ population and make changes in housing 13% of such pressure incidents were ties to accept and hold the violent assignments whenever there is an indica­ terminated by a polite refusal by the members of our society. We are more tion of trouble. potential victim. The target apparently concerned when inmates escape from Studies have indicated that inmates must reject such overtures forcefully, jails and injure citizens than when they who assault other inmates tend to be of perhaps even violently, to avoid being injure each other. While most of us do average weight but usually choose a exploited. Experienced offenders usually not condone this violence, our tendency smaller person as their victim. As­ understand the mores of the prison has been to look the other way. saulters also tend to be younger than the environment and are better able to fend Sometimes, State and local governments average jail resident but, once again, off potential attacks. The unsophisticated have had to be forced by the courts to older than their victims. One key for first-time misdemeanant, such as the become concerned with the conditions identifying this group is that they are drunk driver, does not understand the that produce violence. more likely to have committed a violeut "rules" and therefore may be more The newspaper article about the attack crime. They are also more likely to be likely to become a victim of violence. on Kevin reported that "most victims of among the relatively small group of The current trend toward incarcerating sexual attacks are legally innocent." inmates who frequently break jail rules first-time drunk drivers will put addi-

19 tional pressure on local jails to accu­ '" Sometimes that's enough to push deaths are difficult to prevent. Even rately classify and carefully separate somebody over the edge who other­ when the belts, ties, and even shoelaces violent from non-violent offenders. This wise wouldn't think of doing it," of inmates are confiscated, it is normally is particularly critical in overcrowded Greene said.'" possible for individuals in detention to local jails and lockups already stressed find a means for hanging. Any covering -Eric Freedman, Knickerbocker by large increases in the number of on the bed may be used, and inmates News, Capital Bureau drunk drivers arrested. The drunk driver, have been known to tear up mattresses unsophisticated in jail mores and weak­ to obtain material for hanging them­ ened by intoxication, may be a par­ The problem of suicide highlighted in selves. A case in point occurred in ticularly vulnerable target for the violent the article above is one that has Austin, Texas: offender. concerned the corrections community for some time. Although the problem is Long-time Austin, Texas, police THE PROBLEM OF SUICIDE not limited to drunk drivers, there is jailer Freddie Maxwell has seen it "Tougher enforcement of drunk some evidence that DWls may be a before, but says he still can't figure driving laws in New York apparently highly susceptible group. Suicide in jails out why people arrested for minor has created a grim spinoff- a rising is not limited to sentenced offenders. offenses kill themselves after the cell tide of jail suicides. Over the last 12 The examples cited in the article include doors slam shut. The latest case to months, five defendants charged with individuals who commited suicide, not puzzle him involves Gary Bice, who driving while intoxicated have com­ after sentencing, but following their was jailed April 18 on charges of mitted suicide in county jails and arrest when they were being detained being disorderly and drunk in a motel police lockups, according to Correc­ during the booking process. Many com­ bar. Two hours later, Bice was dead, tion Commission preliminary figures. munities hold drunk ddvers for four to one end of his shirt knotted to the By comparison, no DWI-related sui­ eight hours following their arrest to bars and the other wrapped around cides were reported during the pre­ ensure that they will be sober when they his neck. He was 31. "It appeared he vious 12 months. leave police custody. could have picbd up the pieces of "Among the five casualties: An Each year in the United States ap­ his life," Maxwell said. "You never honors student, 21, at the State proximately 30,000 people commit sui­ know." University College of Technology in cide. Nationally, total jail inmate deaths Homicide Sgt. Howard Hall, who Utica; a Wayne County man, 30, declined from 611 in 1978 to 554 in investigated Bice's death, said the whose wedding was scheduled a 1983. But suicides increased as a body was discovered in the early month after his death; and a Nassau proportion of all deaths, from 49% in morning hours of April 19 during a County man, 22, who was planning 1978 to 53% (294 deaths) in 1983. routine check. As have others before to open a landscaping business. Suicide is the largest single source of him, Bice discovered that suicide in "Criminal justic experts say people death in the nation's jails, accounting for jail can be easy to carry out and accused of drunk driving do not fit 55% of all male deaths, 79% of all difficult to prevent. "With the noose the profile of traditional pretrial de­ female deaths, and 100% of juvenile tying Bice to the bars," Hall said, tainees. The DWI arrestee is in a deaths (001, 1984). "he just simply sat down." (Correc­ high-risk category for suicide, said More than 95% of suicides in the tions Digest, May 23, 1984) Dr. Ronald Greene, acting director of nation's jails are by hanging (NCIA, forensic services at the State Office 1981). A 1982 study of suicides in The suicide prevention program instruc­ of Mental Health. Drunken driving Michigan jails (Hill and Sanok, 1984) tion issued by the Justice Department suspects in custody often come out of showed that 17 out of the 18 suicides (DOJ, 1982) stresses the ease with intoxication with feelings of depres­ reported were by hanging. In South which suicide can be accomplished: sion, guilt, fear of public embarrass­ Carolina, a 1984 study by Memory ment and worry about the legal, indicated that 47 out of the 49 suicides A hanging victim can be dead in employment and financial ramifica­ that occurred between August 1978 and seconds. He dies from brain death tions of their arrests. April 1984 were by hanging. Hanging due to asphyxiation. It is not neces- 20 sary to have the feet off the ground; bility of suicide. In the NICA national as was true in both the Michigan survey two kilograms of pressure will stop survey (1981), 60% of suicide victims and the South Carolina survey. the flow of blood to the brain. Thus, were under the influence of alcohol or Four principal methods have been a serious attempt takes very little drugs at the time of incarceration. The suggested for the control of suicide in time and very few trappings-a bed South Carolina survey suggested that at jails: removal of clothing and posses­ sheet, towel, bandage gauze, pants or least 55% of the suicides were intoxi­ sions that could be used in a suicide shirt-may be used; the victim can cated on alcohol or other drugs at the attempt; provision of holding areas or tie one end to a sink, an upright bed, time of their admission. Moreover, the cells designed to minimize the pos­ or some cell fixture. suicide rate among alcoholics is known sibility of self-inflicted injury; screening to be higher than that of the popUlation of individuals entering the jail for their Another feature typical of jail suicides in general, perhaps as much as 40 times potential to commit suicide; and keeping is that they occur early in the period of higher. Whether a higher suicide rate the potential suicide under close incarceration. According to the 1981 among intoxicated individuals admitted supervision. NCIA National Survey, one in four to jail reflects the conditions of con­ No facility can be made suicide-proof. suicides had been housed less than 3 finement or simply a predisposition is Standard jail admissions procedures call hours, half less than 24 hours. In the therefore unknown. The South Carolina for a complete search of the offender to 1982 Michigan study (Hill and Sanok, survey noted that 18% of the suicides ensure that no weapons are carried into 1984), 61 % of the suicides had been were in jail due to DWI charges. the jail and that razors and other housed in the jail for less than 12 hours The suicide problem is particularly personal articles are confiscated. Despite and 50% for less than 5 hours. In South difficult for the corrections community this, it is difficult to confiscate all Carolina, at least one-half of the sui­ to handle because it seems to be most materials that might be used in a suicide cides occurred during the first 24 hours. prevalent in the facilities with the least attempt. It should be noted that a high percentage resources for dealing with it. Memory Special attention should be given to of the local jail admittees in South (1984) found, in his South Carolina the presence of glass, such as mirrors or Carolina, as well as other States, spend suicide survey, that the overall suicide windows, in inmate housing areas, as less than 24 hours in jail (Memory, rate for all prison and jail facilities in well as to any toxic substances that may 1984). the State was 110 per 100,000 inmates. be used for cleaning or other purposes. In South Carolina, 39 of the 49 However, the suicide rate fot overnight Cups, plates, and eating utensils can people who committed suicide had not lockups was almost 25 times higher- also become instruments of self-destruc­ been tried for the offense for which they 2,797 per 100,000 average daily popula­ tion, as can clothing and furnishings: In had been arrested. The large proportion tion. The corresponding figures for a detailed study of the 17 hanging of suicides that occur among individuals prisons in the State was 47 per 100,000 deaths in Michigan, 6 occurred by arrested, but not yet tried, together with average daily popUlation; for local jails, means of a sheet, 6 with shirts, 2 with the evidence that most suicides occur the rate was 150 per 100,000 average trousers,' 1 with a pillow case and towel, during the first few hours of incarcera­ daily population. I with a blanket, and 1 with a tion, suggests that the most dangerous Thus, by far the highest frequency of shoestring and belt. Several inmates period for jail suicide may be during the suicide occurs in local jails or lockUps. have even attempted suicide by sticking period between arrest and arraignment Yet, in general, local lockups are the their heads into the commode and when the accused is first placed in jail. least well-staffed correctional facilities flushing the toilet. Hill and Sanok (1984) note that persons and the ones with the fewest provisions Short of stripping individuals and who have never been in jail before are for handling drinking drivers. As noted placing them in rooms without bedding at higher risk for committing suicide previously, only about 12% of the or other facilities, there is no way to than persons who have previously been nation's jails have drunk tanks and a full completely prevent such suicides. A jailed. 10% of jails do not have 24-hour-a-day suicide attempt typically takes no more It is possible that intoxication or supervision (Kerle and Ford, 1982). than 10 minutes. The best assurance impairment by other drugs at the time of This is particularly important because against suicide is screening individuals admission a;:~o contributes to the proba- the majority of suicides occur at night, on admission to determine the suicide 21

------risk they present and then continuously helpful to the officers responsible for results of the screening and to take monitoring individuals at risk local jail facilities, the limited personnel action if there is any indication an throughout the critical first hours of available in local jails may make even offender may be likely to attempt or incarceration. relatively simple procedures too time­ may be attempting suicide. If staffing Procedures for this screening are in a consuming to be used. does not permit clos~ observation of the rudimentary state. The validity of most In any case, the value of any individual, then some of the value of screening procedures is unknown. More­ screening system will be limited by the such screening will be lost. over, although such procedures may be capability of staff to follow up on the

22 Section 5 Deterring the Drunk Driver

USE OF JAIL IS CONTROVERSIAL effectiveness of jail sentences for DWIs tive because (1) they are rarely imposed, has not been determined because: and (2) they disrupt the court system by A recent report in the Orlando Sentinel 1. Jail has not, until recently, been producing greater pressure for plea questioned the effectiveness of jail widely used in the United bargaining, with the result that the sanctions for drunk drivers: States. severity of sanctions is actually reduced 2. Where mandatory jail sentences rather than increased. Mandatory jail terms will not keep have been established they have drunken drivers off the road as State frequently not been imple­ legislators had hoped, a subcommit­ EVIDENCE FOR THE mented as intended; rather, they tee of the National Safety Council EFFECTIVENESS OF JAIL have disrupted court processing reported Monday in Orlando. The SENTENCES of DWIs. report, presented before the Commit­ 3. Foreign experience with jailing The use of mandatory jail sanctions in tee on Alcohol and Drugs, said harsh of DWIs is not directly applica­ the past was found to be ineffective penalties for drunken driving will ble to the United States because because it disrupted the courts and could only increase the amount of plea jail is combined with many not be uniformly applied. With the bargaining, findings of not guilty, other drunk driving penalties, recent shift in public attitude regarding police leniency, and possible police sometimes under circumstances the seriousness of the DWI offense, corruption. . . . It said mandatory quite different from the United increasing numbers of States and lo­ jail terms would do nothing to solve States. calities not only are implementing man­ the nation's drunken driving problem. datory jail sentences, they are applying "The scientific evidence indicates that Beliefs and claims aside, the impor­ sentences more uniformly. this does not happen," said O'Neill tant issue is how effective are jail Evidence for this trend emerged from (Vice President for Research of the sentences and other tough penalties on a recent study of the implementation by Insurance Institute for Highway Safe­ drunk driving? In the past, efforts to the courts in Hennepin County, Min­ ty). "In fact, it suggests the contrary. change attitudes with respect to drunk nesota, of a two-day jail sentence for Increasing the severity of punishment driving through the threat of jail sen­ DWI offenders. This study provided is more likely to reduce the like­ tences were found on evaluation to be evidence that such jail sentences may be lihood of conviction, and as a ineffective. One well-known study de­ effective in reducing alcohol-related ac­ consequence, could diminish rather scribed an effort by a Chicago judge to cidents. In Hennepin County, a judicial than increase the deterrence effect of impose a seven-day jail sentence on all policy established early in 1982 DWI laws." drunk drivers. The program was demon­ provided for two-day jail sentences for Although it is widely believed that strated to be ineffective, at least in part, convicted drunk drivers. Unlike most tough laws in Scandinavia have because only a small portion of the other communities that have adopted a solved the drunken driving problem drivers actually received the seven-day mandatory sentencing policy, the Hen­ there, this belief is "folklore", the sanction (Robertson et aI., 1973). nepin County courts were successful in report concluded. (Peter Larson, Or­ In another study, passage by the maintaining a high level of application lando Sentinel, February 9, 1982) Arizona legislature of a mandatory one­ of the jail sanction. The proportion of day jail sentence disrupted the prosecu­ convicted first offense DWls sentenced tion of drunk driving cases in Phoenix to jail was over 90% at the outset of the While, as the Sentinel reports, some and required the development of a pre­ program and declined only slightly to research specialists believe that jailing trial diversion system to ensure that 80% over the next year and a half. DWls is not an effective method of DWI offenders received some sanction During the period in which this policy reducing drunk driving, many others. in a reasonably timely manner (Voas, was being implemented, DWI arrests including citizen activists, government 1982b). From these and other studies increased as shown in Figure 5-1. At officials, and police, believe that jail (Ross, 1974), many researchers have the same tme, nighttime injury accidents may be the most effective and appropri­ come to the conclusion that tough (believed to be a good measure of ate penalty for drunk drivers. The penalties for drunk drivers are ineffec- alcohol related accidents because more

23 Figure 5·1 Number of OWl Arrests by Month Before and After Jail Policy, Hennepin Couinty

800 Start of jail policy 1/82 740 680 620 drinking drivers are involved in night­ ...(f) (f) 560 time crashes) went down as shown in ~ ~ Figure 5-2. Statistical analysis of these 500 data indicated that the reduction in nighttime accident's in Hennepin County 440 was related to both the increase in 380 arrests and the change in sentencing policy. A similar analysis on another 320 Minnesota county (Ramsey) that did not have the two-day jail policy did not 260 show a similar decrease in nighttime accidents. Falkowski, author of this 200 report (1984), concludes that adoption of the two-day jail policy resulted in a 20% 10 20 30 40 60 70 50 reduction in nighttime crashes in Source: Falkowski, 1984 Months Hennepin County. The Executive Sum­ mary of this report is reprinted in Appendix A.

Figure 5·2 Number of Nighttime Injury Accidents by Month SURVEYS OF THE USE OF THE Before and After Jail Policy, Hennepin County JAIL SANCTION FOR DWI Two recent survey reports bear di­ rectly on the use of jail sentences for 260 drunk drivers. A study supported by the Start of jail policy 1/82 National Highway Traffic Safety Admin­ istration (Williams et al., 1983) was relatively pessimistic regarding the law and the practice of imposing jail sen­ tences. Among its conclusions were the 203 following: !!l • Both first and mUltiple offenders c Q) 184 actually serve less severe penalties than "C '0 7/83 those stipulated by State law, although u <{ 165 technically the sentences are mandatory. • The use of mandatory con­ 146 finement has reportedly caused consider­ able overcrowding in many local jails. 127 • Offenders generally are given the 108 option of servo 19 weekend confinement as long as space is available. 89 • Mandatory confinement is often a factor in increased requests for jury 70 trials and plea bargains to lesser of­ fenses to avoid jail. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 A more positive view emerged from a Source: Flllkowski, '1984 Months study supported by the National Institute

24 of Justice (1983). Entitled Mandatory because the law required that OWls be for controversy over which combinations Confinement for Drunk Driving, the placed on probation, unrealistic case of sanctions should be applied to drunk study found that: loads were created for probation drivers is that different advocates have • Police arrests of drunk drivers officers. different purposes in mind. To clarify tend to increase with the well-publicized • In Seattle, Washington, mandato­ some of these controversies, it is useful ~ntroduction of mandatory confinement ry confinement of OWls contributed to to review some of the major purposes or and other strict sanctions for drunk jail overcrowding and required the con­ reasons for applying sanctions to offend­ driving. struction of a new jail primarily for ers, along wth the limit"d scientific • With the consistent use of man­ OWls. evidence available on the extent to datory confinement, there is a dramatic • In Hamilton County, Ohio (Cin­ which various sanctions actually achieve increase in the incarceration rate of cinnati), even though a hospital was these objectives. convicted drunk drivers. converted for weekend confinement of • Implementation of mandatory OWls, a backlog of up to seven months General Deterrence confinement and other strict sanctions developed between sentencing and actu­ In theory, the major purpose of a for drunk driving is frequently associ­ ally serving the mandatory sentence. OWl sanction is to produce general ated with a decline in alcohol-related Whatever the validity of the various deterrence; that is, to deter the public at traffic fatalities. arguments pro and con, it is clear that large from driving after drinking by the The study also noted, however, the the States have decided to include jail threat of imposition of a painful penalty. effect of mandatory jail sentences on the among the options available to the court The extent to which anyone of the six judicial process: in OWl cases, and many have made jail sanctioning options currently available a mandatory sanction for the drunk • The introduction of mandatory produces general deterrence is unknown. confinement and other strict sanctions driving offense. Given this situation, it Laurence Ross (1982), in his review of for drunk driving tend to affect court is important for traffic safety specialists, general deterrence programs, notes that operations. corrections professionals, and local gov­ there have been very few scientific ernment officials to deal with the • With the introduction of more studies of the general deterrent value of severe sanctions for drunk driving, some problem in a realistic and effective penalties. He concludes that what evi­ defendants may be more likely to manner. To do this, a common under­ dence there is does not support the challenge, delay, or avoid compliance standing of the purposes of the jail effectiveness of raising penalties, in with court procedures and decisions. sanction for drunk driving is needed. part, because stricter penalties frequently The 1>tudy also made the following Based on such a common understand­ are not applied uniformly. observations about mandatory sentences ing, we can review the total correctional and the correctional process: needs of the community and develop the Specific Deterrence • The use of mandatory con­ most cost-effective solution to the prob­ finement for drunk driving generally has lems presented by sentencing drunk The second major purpose of sanc­ a significant impact on incarceration drivers to jail. tions is to prevent repetition of the facilities and probation services. offense, or recidivism, by convicted • Incarcerated drunk drivers are offenders. This is known as "specific generally separated from regular jail FUNCTIONS OF SANCTIONS deterrence." It is presumed to operate in inmates and are often placed in special FOR DWI essentially the same way as general programs. The complexity of the sanctioning deterrence: that is, the painfulness of the The survey uncovered several specific options available to the court is not penalty experienced 'oy the offender is examples of problems created for cor­ generally understood by the public and supposed to prevent a recurrence of the rections programs by mandatory jail by many officials. At least six classes of offense. Scienti,c support for such an sentences for OWls: sanctions are currently used in various effect is generally lacking. There is little • In Memphis, Tennessee, han­ combinations by the court: fines, licensf' evidence, for example, that the length of dling OWls sentenced to jail severely actions, jail, probation, community serv­ a jail sentence or the amount of a fine is overcrowded the penal farm. Moreover, ice, and treatment. One of the reasons corrdated with the amount of recividism 25 (NHTSA, 1984). Studies of the effect of are effective in reducing recidivism and restitution to specific victims, these jail sentences on recividism in the the probability of accident involvement sanctions provide a method for support­ Netherlands were generally negative. To of drunk drivers (Sadler and Perrine, ing the the community's drunk driving date, the only positive correlation that 1984). It is true that some individuals control system. A recent study has been demonstrated between re­ who lose their licenses continue to (NHTSA, 1983b) has shown that it cidivism and DWI penalties such as drive. This leads to the frequently should be possible to collect sufficient fines and jail is one obtained in a expressed opinion that license suspen­ funds from drunk drivers to support the limited context in a study conducted in sions do not work because people drive system that attempts to control the drunk Australia (NHTSA, 1984). anyway. But the evidence shows that driving problem. Drunk drivers differ Treatment is also a sanction alter­ individuals who are suspended have from most other offenders in that they native directed at reducing recidivism. fewer accidents and moving violations are usually employed and have consider­ The use of rehabilitation programs as than offenders who do no receive a able resources. They own and operate a part of, or as alternatives to, other license sanction. Moreover, license sus­ car, and they have sufficient funds to sanctions for handling offenders is pensions can run for one or more years pay for a large amount of alcohol. Thus, controversial. With ~spect to the drink­ whereas jail sentences run from a few fines and fees can be an important ing driver, however, there is evidence days to one or two months. This may be source of revenue to offset law enforce­ that alcohol education for those classi­ the reason why the liense suspension is ment, adjudication, and corrections fied as social drinkers does result in a far more effective than a jail sentence in costs associated with drunk driving small reduction in recidivism (approx­ reducing drunk driving recividism offenses. imately 10%) in comparison to the use. (NHTSA, 1984b). IMPACT ON COURT SYSTEM of a fine alone. Offenders classified as problem drinkers require a much more Restitution The significance of sanctioning op­ intensive and longer treatment program. tions to effective functioning of the DWI sanctions can be used to provide There is evidence that if drunk drivers court system is an important considera­ restitution to either the individual victim who are problem drinkers are required tion. As noted earlier, the imposition of or the community as a whole. Victim to participate in an intensive treatment mandatory jail sentences has frequently support groups such as MADD and RID program for at least a year, their upset the operation of the courts by are actively campaigning for both vic­ recidivism is reduced (NHTSA, 1984). causing offenders to contest more tims rights and victims restitution bills. strongly than in the past. The readiness Courts have frequently reduced fines and of offenders to hire defense attorneys Incapacitation other sanctions when, as a condition of and take other actions, that add to the probation, restitution to the victim is A third purpose of sanctions is to expense of the judicial system, such as provided. protect the public through incapacitation requesting jury trials, is related in part Community Service is a popular of the offender; that is, removing the to the severity of the sanctions they alternative to jail authorized by a offender from society to eliminate the face. In some cases, certain sanctions number of States (Harris, 1979). It is possibility that he or she can repeat the place new constitutional requirements on believed to be a punitive sanction with offense. While jail sentences accomplish the court. Thus, where incarceration is a deterrence value that also has the value this objective, jail sentences for DWls, possibility, the defendant may have a of making a useful contribution to the even for multiple offenders, are rela­ right to a jury trial, whereas the use of community. To date, the extent to which tively short. The offender is prevented other sanctions such as fines would this sanction actually deters drunk driv­ from driving for only a few days or require the defendant to accept a trial by ers has not been adequately assessed. months. Therefore, jail "incapacitates" judge. the drunk driver for a shorter period of Funding The experience of the Washington, time than the typical license suspensions D.C., area, as reported in the Wash­ imposed for DWI offenses. Fines and fees are always a part of ington Post, illustrates this problem: Studies of license suspensions and the sentencing options available for the "The much-vaunted get-tough policy revocations have demonstrated that they DWI offense. In addition to providing on drunk drivers in the Washington area 26 has been blunted in the courts by are hiring lawyers, more cases are being many different objectives in mind in defense attorneys armed with aggressive tried and more decisions are being supporting various DWI legislation and new courtroom tactics and legal maneu­ appealed. Attorneys, particularly those in establishing court policies. Because vers. As a result, harsher anti-drinking now specializing in drunk driving de­ there is little reliable scientific data to laws have not led to substantially stiffer fenses, say they have more clients and support the efficacy of one or another penalties in Maryland, Virginia, and the are charging higher fees." (Molly Moore sanction, there is much room for District of Columbia, according to a and Tom Vesey, the Washington Post, controversy. There is reason to believe, study of court records and interviews November 28, 1983) however, that our knowledge in this area with judges and lawyers. will improve. The increasing public SUMMARY "And, although alcohol-related high­ consensus on the use of tough penalties way deaths in most jurisdictions have Most courts use a combination of for DWI has produced new legislation fallen dramatically, officials say the sanctions. This appears to be appropri­ that is being more uniformly applied. sentences meted out in the courtroom ate because different sanctions have This should permit better evaluation. have had little if anything to do with it. differing purposes. Since some sanctions Greater uniformity in applying these Officials credit the lower fatality rate to have been shown to be effective for one laws should also lead us to be cautious increased public awareness, bolstered by purpose and some for another, it is regarding the frequently negative results police roadblocks, special patrols and, likely that a combination of sanctions is of past studies of the jail sanction in the in most areas, increased arrests. needed to deal with the drunk driving United States. With more uniform and "The new laws, along wth more problem most effectively. This review of effective application, the effectiveness of arrests, have meant a boom in business the purposes of sanctions indicates that this penalty as a general and specific for defense attorneys. More defendants advocates of various penalties have deterrent may improve.

27 Section 6 Developing a Coherent Sanctioning Policy

In considering the mix of sanctions to strictly speaking, a sanction, the three limitations in such a facility are gener­ be used, in a community, it is important principal penalties available to the courts ally less strict than those imposed in to weigh what is known about each are: secure facilities, the degree of freedom sanction's effectiveness, cost, and im­ 1. Deprivation of wealth (fines). given the individual offender can be pact on the criminal justice system. 2. Deprivation of freedom of varied depending on the individual and In its report on mandatory con­ movement and action (jail, work the policy of the institution. finement for drunk driving (1983), the release, probation, driver's li­ Similarly, individual freedom can be National Institute of Justice recom­ cense restriction). limited through probation supervision mended that this particular sanction 3. Work without remuneration that requires offenders to limit their must be applied consistently: (community service, victim res­ movement within the community and to titution, jail work details). be at their residence or in a known Effective use of a mandatory con­ location at all times. Once again, the finement policy for drunk drivers 1. Fines restriction of freedom and mobility requires that the sanction be applied under probation is less than in a secure in a consistent manner. This will Fines have been a traditional part of facility, but the amount of restriction can increase the likelihood of deterrence the sanctioning process. Typically, the be varied by the amount of supervision and equitable administration. Making judge has discretion within certain provided. The general principal that explicit the judicial policies that maximUm/minimum levels to assess a offenders can be punished through guide the use of mandatory con­ fine as punishment for an offense. A restrictions in freedom without assign­ finement and other strict sanctions is significant problem in the application of ment to a secure facility is widely used also important and can play a key fines has been the varying income status in the punishment of criminal offenders. role in promoting the consistent use of offenders. Fines are not a useful of these sanctions (NIJ, 1983). sanction for the indigent. On the other hand, a fine may be the least onerous of 3. Unpaid Work sanctions for the wealthy. The Because a number of different types Many State prison systems use incar­ punitiveness of a fine is obviously of penalties are commonly applied to cerated offenders to help maintain and related to the resources of the offender. DWls for differing purposes, the estab­ support the prison facilities. A more In the case of the indigent, no fine can lishment of a uniform, coherent sanc­ recent trend has been to use unpaid be collected and therefore a fine may tioning policy is difficult. Differences in labor as a substitute for incarceration by have little significance. In the case of sanctioning policy between judges can sentencing offenders to community serv­ the wealthy, even a high fine may be cause "judge shopping" by defense ice. Such sentences may require a less punitive than jail or enforced attorneys. Differences in objectives be­ number of days of work but, other than community service. tween citizens activist groups, court requiring the individual to be present for personnel. corrections officials, and that work, may not restrict his or her 2. Confinement treatment specialists can produce serious freedom of movement. The Presidential policy controversies. And the latitude One purpose of a jail sentence is to Commission on Drunk Driving (1983) for such controversy is increased by the "incapacitate" the offender by separating suggested that 10 days of community lack of information on the relative him or her from the public. The major service could be substituted for the 2 effectiveness of different sanctions. impact on the individual inmate is the days of jail that they also recommended. Thus one key to effective planning of a limitation in freedom of mobility and These three types of penalties clearly community corrections program for activity and the separation from family have some common interactive DWls is to develop a reasonable con­ and community. This punishing limita­ elements. A fine, for example, could be sensus regarding the purpose of sanc­ tion in freedom can also be obtained by seen as a special case of involuntary tions. Leaving aside for the moment other methods. Non-secure work release service. The individual works and earns license restriction, which is generally centers, for example, also separate money on his or her own job but then the province of State motor vehicle offenders from their homes and families gives up the money in the form of a departments and treatment which is not, and limit their freedom. While the fine. In a community service sentence, 29 the offender works at another job and example, regarding the relative suggests the "accountability" sanctioning receives no money. Alternatively, punitiveness of fines, unpair service, scale, shown in Figure 6-1. This scale weekend community service is a way of and restriction of freedor!' ~s a day of has 10 "accountability" categories rang­ limiting the freedom of an offender community service an equitable sub­ ing from a fine with essentially no wthout locking up the person. stitute for a day in jail? How many restriction to incarceration in a max­ dollars in fines equate to a day of imum security prison. The selection of Punishing the Drunk Driver Can Be community service? From the standpoint the accountability level appropriate to Expensive of the individual offender, punitiveness the offender would be based on the is obviously determined by his or her seriousness of the crime, including An important feature of these alter­ perception of the severity of the penalty. whether it was a first or repeat offense. native sanctions is that they involve Regardless of the particular sanctions Quinn notes: considerable differences in cost to the applied in a given locality, the individu­ community. The cost of residential al's perception is subje':tive and not The options which now exist in most programs ranges between $26 per day accessible to analysis by the court. jurisdictions are more or less restric­ for a local jail (DOJ, 1984) to $35 per Nevertheless, if the three general types tive based on undefined criteria. Most day for a State prison (DOJ, 1983a) or of penalties could be roughly scaled, observers would agree that prison is modem well-staffed and well-equipped then the use of various alternatives could more restrictive than an outpatient work release center (Montgomery Coun­ be tailored to the particular needs of the treatment program, which is more ty, Maryland, 1984). Supervising the individual and of the community. restrictive than unsupervised proba­ same offender in a community service A second limit on the flexible use of tion. Most would also agree that the program may cost only $2 to $10 a day penalties is the image these penalties greater the restrictions, the more (California League of Alternative Serv­ present to the public. Incarceration is punitive the sanction. However, cur­ ice Programs, 1983). Probation supervi­ established in the public mind as the rently there is no definition of sion depending on its intensity, may cost appropriate response to crime. Sanctions "restrictiveness," no way of ranking from a few cents to a few dollars per such as work release, community serv­ one sanction compared to another. day. At the other end of the scale, fines, ice, and probation may be seen as rather than being an expense, generate "letting the criminal off easy." Similarly, Quinn suggests that the various types income for the community. fines may be seen as inadequate or of restrictions be scaled according to The mix of sanctions imposed by a worse, as allowing the wealthy to buy "accountability" level to relate to the court can produce large variations in the their way out of approprite punishment. seriousness of the offense and to each expense of the corrections program to Thus, the penalties assessed are an other. He suggests a 10-point scale. The the community. For this reason, there important expression of the public and court would determine at which point on has been considerable emphasis within official attitude toward an offense. the scale the particular crime placed the the community of corrections profes­ offender. Based on this classification, sionals to assign offenders to the least appropriate sanctions could be applied. restrictive, appropriate corrections pro­ Producing an Integrated Scale of Quinn's accountability scale lists six grams. This policy of using the least Punishment categories of restrictions (penalties) restrictive corrections solution is embod­ A number of corrections officials have commonly applied to offenders: ied in a recent policy statement of the suggested the need for a common 1. Mobility in the Community­ American Correctional Association. dimension on which different types of How much time the offender Obviously. the most cost-efficient cor­ sanctions such as incarceration, service, can spend freely in the rections system is one with maximum and fines could be scaled, based on the community. flexibility in sentencing. The extent to seriousness of the offense. A par­ 2. Choice of Residence -Living which such flexibility can be exercised, ticularly detailed system has been pro­ where one chooses. however, is limited by at least two posed by Thomas J. Quinn (1984), 3. Mobility Within the Setting­ significant factors: equity and image. Executive Director, Delaware Criminal What constraints on their move­ There is no substantial agreement, for Justice Planning Commission. Quinn ments are placed on offenders in

30 Figure 6-1- Proposed Accountability Scale for Court Sanctions (Thomas Quinn, Delaware)

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Restrictions Mobility in the Community 100% 100% 90% (10% of 80% (20% of 60% (40% of 30% (70% of 20% (80% of 10% (90% of 0% 0% (unrestricted) (unrestricted) time restricted) time restricted) time restricted) time restricted) time restricted) time restricted

Amount of Supervision 0:0 Written report! 1-2 Face-Io- 3-6 Face-to- 2-6 Face-to- Daily phone Daily on site Daily on site Daily on site Daily on site month face/month 1-2 face/month face/week Daily face-to- supervision supervision supervision 24 supervisdion Weekly phone Weekly phone Daily phone face Weekly 8-16 hrs/day 16-24 hrs/day hrs/day 24 hours/day contact contacts Written written reports reports/weekly

Financial Obligations Fine/costs Fine/cost/rest.! Same Same Same (pay Same Same N/A N/A N/A may be probation (increase (increase partial cost of applied super fee may probation fee probation fee food/lodgingl be applied by $5-101 by $5-10/ supervision month) month fee

Examples (These are $50 fine/court $50 fine, Fine/costsl Weekend Mandatory Work Release; Residential Minimum Medium Maximum examples only-many costs; 6 restitution, restitution; 1 community rehab. skills pay portion of treatment security prison security prison security prison other scenarios could be months court costs; 6 year probation; service Or program 8 room/boardl program; pay constructed meeting the unsupervised months weekend mandatory hours/day; restitution; no portion of requirements of each probation supervised community treatment 5 restitution; kitchen program costs; level) probation; $101 service; no hrs/day; $301 probation fee privileges limited month fee; drinking month of $40/month; outside meal privileges written report probation fee; no drinking times; no monthly no drinking; no curfew drinking; no out-of-state sex; weekends trips home - -- -_ .. _------

Source: Thomas J. Quinn, Executive Director, Delaware Criminal Justice Planning Commission (1984)

w residential programs or in prison debates over the extent of punishment ing incarceration. Yet, as shown in and jail. appropriate to offenders of different Figure 6-3, 88% of the State's total 4. Amount of Supervision-Phone types and can be extremely important to corrections budget was being expended contact, face-to-face contact, on­ the handling of DWls. Because DWls on the 21 % of offenders who were site supervision; monthly, week­ should be subject to the range of incarcerated in prison. The 8 out of 10 ly, daily. sanctions established for other offenders, offenders who were not incarcerated 5. Privileges-What restrictions it is important to be able to scale DWI were being supervised in the community are placed on the offender's offenses in relation to other crimes. for slightly more than one-tenth of the freedom to travel out of state, total budget. On an average, it was make phone calls, receive and costing the State $11,800 per year to send mail, etc. incarcerate an offender and only $420 a 6. Financial Obligations-Fees, LACK OF INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL year to supervise an offender in the fines, etc. RESTRICTIONS community. This difference in cost should motivate communities to find The scaling for three of these types of To determine the "level" at which combinations of sanctions that minimize restrictions is illustrated in Figure 6-1. offenders in Delaware were being incarceration and that make maximum Mobility in the community would vary placed, Quinn surveyed the number of use of lower-cost community facilities from unrestricted (level 1) to con­ offenders in various correctional pro­ and programs where offenders can finement in medium and maximum grams wthin the State. The results of his receive adequate supervision and treat­ security prisons (levels 9 and 10). study are summarized in Figure 6-2. ment as needed. Intermediate levels would permit man­ The various types of programs, ranging datory treatment in the community or from unsupervised probation to incar­ residence in a work release center. ceration in a maximum security prison, DWI PROVIDES SPECIAL Also shown in Figure 6-1 is the range are arrayed from left to right with the SANCTION OPPORTUNITIES for supervision, which runs from least restrictive programs on the left. As "unsupervised probation" in level 1 to can be seen, the largest numbers of The convicted drunk driver offers a daily face· :u :ace contacts in level 6, to offenders receive penalties at the ex­ unique opportunity for the flexible ap­ supervision 24 hours per day in prison tremes of this graph. Relatively few are plication of sentencing alternatives. In at levels 9 and 10. The final example accommodated in programs in the mid­ general, DWls are not violent and pose shows a similar range for fine and fee dle range of the scale, which include no significant escape risk. Therefore, assessments. At the bottom of Figure such programs as work release and they need not be incarcerated in a secure 6-1 are examples of the types of intensive probation supervision. This facility. sentences that might be imposed at each illustrates a characteristic of correctional The license sanction can significantly accountability level. programming in the UniteG States that is lower the threat of reoffense. Taking An important feature of the scale generally recognized by corrections spe­ away the driver's license "incapacitates" suggested by Quinn is that it helps cialists-the lack of intermediate-range drunk drivers and protects the public integrate in a rational way the different facilities and supervised programs (for against the acts they commit under the types of penalties (restrictions) that can example, community service and work influence of alcohol. This protection is be imposed on offenders. It is easy to release). not perfect; studies demonstrate that grasp the increasing scale of punishment One result of this lack is that courts most individuals whose licenses are as mobility is more and more restricted are forced to choose between sending suspended continue to drive. However, and supervision is increased. The scale offenders to secure facilities and releas­ these same studies also indicate that suggests an equity relationshp between ing them into the community with they drive fewer miles and drive more fines, probation, community service, relatively little supervision. As the carefully than they did before their mandatory treatment, work release, and diagram shows, the largest number of licenses were suspended or revoked. As incarceration. offenders were placed on probation or a result, their accident involvement is The use of such a scale can objectify were being supervised on parole follow- significantly reduced.

32 License restrictions and treatment pro­ traditional sanctions of fines, unpaid license restriction and alcohol treatment, grams for drunk drivers provide two service, and limitation of freedom. It while punitive, have additional special additional sanctions to go along with the should be kept in mind, however, that purposes.

Figure 6·2 Number of Inmates Under Correctional Supervision, by Type of Program (Delaware)

...... 2,000 -

1,800

1,600

1,400 .gc: ctI 1,350 :i 1,200 1.329 1,268 a. o a. 1,000-

800

600

400 537 307 307 200 119 I I 30 I 0 Level II III IV V VI Vll Vlli IX X Existing 11--- Proba.!Parole -----II I--Work Release --I ~ Min -l ~- Med ~ ~ Max --I Delaware Work Referral/ Sec Sec Sec Sanctions Comm. Service 1

t---- Supervi$ed -----f Custody Prison -----f

Source: Thomas J. Quinn, Executive Director, Delaware Criminal Justice Planning Commission (1984)

33 Figure 6-3- Comparative Costs of Incarceration and Community Correc­ consensus with regard to the scaling of tions (Delaware) penalties to be imposed on OWls and other offenders. This scale will serve as a basis for a comprehensive corrections Percentage Percentage program. This program must have suffi­ Custody of Cost of cient public support and authority to Status Population (Millions) Cost assure that all drunk drivers are appro­ priately punished. At the same time, the Incarcerated* 1,805 21 21.3 88 program must provide maximum flex­ Not Incarcerated*" 6,668 79 2.8 12 ibility for tailoring the penalties to TOTAL 8,573 100 24.1 100 specific needs and to the community facilities and programs that are available. *Incarceration ;: Sentencing Reform Commission accountability levels VIII, Traditional stereotypes regarding what IX and X is punitive and what is not should be **Not Incarcerated = Sentencing Reform Commission accountability levels I avoided. Jail sentences, for example, through VII may be a highly humiliating and fright­ ening experience to some drunk driv­ Source: Thomas J. Quinn, Executive Director, Delaware Criminal Justice Planning Commis­ ers-so frightening, in fact, that they sion (1984) may move to take their own lives (see Section 4). On the other hand, short­ term jail sentences may be experienced License restriction protects the public crime (but rather as necessary adjuncts by other drunk driving offenders as from reoffense by reducing future drink­ to managing imprisoned offenders), al­ opportunities to escape from more press­ ing and driving. Therefore, it should not cohol treatment has been shown to help ing problems. At the recent symposium be traded off against other sanctions. reduce recidivism. In addition, it is on weekend jailing of OWls, several Jail While other penalties might produce punitive because it limits freedom administrators commented that, from equal or greater "punishment," they may (offenders must attend therapy sessions their observations, many of the offend­ not be equally effective in protecting the and AA) and it forces a change in ers appeared happy to get away from pUblic. behavior (abstinence) that is not desired their wives and jobs for the weekend The principal purpose of treatment is by most drunk drivers. and have the opportunity to relax, play to deal with the OWl offender's drinking cards, and socialize with other inmates. problem. This health problem is man­ SUMMARY Part of the process of developing a ifest in the vast majority of drunk Because of the variety of penalties coherent, appropriate, and cost-effective drivers who are multiple offenders. that can be imposed on the drunk driver, corrections program for drunk drivers, While health care and treatment re­ and the significant differences in the then, is reaching a reasonable consensus habilitation programs are not normally cost of these penalties to the community, on what is appropriate punishment and considered part of the punishment for a it is important to develop community "correction" for what offense.

34 Section 7 Alcohol 'freatment Requirements

Alcohol abuse is not a new problem to more violent andlor subject to being the programs have generally been imple­ corrections officials. As shown by Fig­ victim of violence or attempting suicide. mented through the courts as one ure 7-1, which reports the results of a Because of this potential for injury, element supported by offender payments 1979 Department of Justice (l983c) drunk drivers probably should be held in and motivated by a reduction in one of survey of prison inmates, 47% of individual rooms or cells and should be the traditional penalties for drunk driv­ offenders compared to 17% of the under close observation during the first ing (fine, jail sentence, or license general male population drank one hours of their incarceration. However, as suspension). The offender generally ounce or more of pure alcohol daily. already described, most local jails lack signs an agreement that he or she will Almost half of the inmates had been the facilities and personnel to do this. attend and successfully complete an drinking just before they committed alcohol abuse education/treatment pro­ their offense. Figure 7-2 gives the time DRUNK DRIVER TREATMENT gram. This agreement becomes one of spent drinking just prior to the offense PROGRAMS the conditions for probation. Although as reported by prison inmates. One in Historically, education and treatment offenders can sometimes select among five had been drinking for over nine programs for OWls have been mandated several alternatives, in most areas the hours! Other studies repon that as many by the court as part of the sentencing court assigns the offender to a specific as 86% of homicide offenders and 72% process for the OWl offense. These treatment agency. of those convicted of other assaults and robbery were drinking at the time of Figure 7-1- Drinking Habits of Male Inmates in U.S. Prisons their offense (Roizen, 1982). Compared with U.S. Male Population (Ages 18-34) While it is well recognized that a high proportion of inmates in local jails and Average ounces of State prisons have alcohol and drug pure alcohol General problems, programs for dealing with consumed Qer day Prison Inmates PO[2ulation these problems have generally been very limited. particularly in local jails. Tradi­ None 18% 14% tionally. public drunks were arrested and placed in the "drunk tank" (generally a Less than one ounce 35% 69% cell separate from other prisoners) to An ounce or more 47% 17% sober up. Recognizing that incarceration was no solution to the problem of public Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Prisoners and Alcohol, 1983c drunkenness. most States passed public inebriate acts during the late 1960s and Figure 7-2- Hours Spent Drinking Just early 1970s. These acts decriminalized Prior to Offense By Prison Inmates Who public drunkenness and allowed pOlice Say They Drank on Day of Offense to deliver intoxicated individuals who had not committed a crime to a Number % detoxification center. Unfortunately, many communities did not provide Less than 1 hour 12,150 10% detoxification facilities. As a result, 1 to 2 hours 32,192 25% public inebriates continue to be placed in jail for their own safety (Whitford, 3 to 4 hours 25,547 20% 1983). 5 to 8 hours 29,550 23% Drunk drivers generally do not pres­ ent the same picture of acute alcohol 9 or more hours 27,330 ?2% intoxication that requires immediate Total 126,769 100% medical attention. On the other hand, their impaired status may make them Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Prisoners and Alcohol, 1983c

35 Offwders are generally assigned to Students are led to understand how Evaluation of these education pro­ programs based on an assessment of they came to be arrested and are guided grams in the 35 Alcohol Safety Action their individual drinking problem. in developing their own plan to avoid Projects demonstrated that they had a Drinker type, as used in drunk driving future drunk driving episodes. The positive effect on the recidivism of programs, is best understood as a concept behind this and other education social drinkers. The programs reduced dimension beginning with those who do programs is that if individuals become by approximately 10% the probability not drink and moving through the more knowledgeable about the dangers that these drunk drivers would reoffend "social drinkers"-those who drink rela­ tively small amounts of alcohol and experience relatively few problems asso­ Figure 7-3 Drinking Status of OWls Referred to Treatment ciated with alcohol consumption-to the through Alcohol Safety Action Project, 1971·1976 "problem drinkers"-those who fre­ quently drink large amounts of alcohol or have had adverse consequences be­ cause of their drinking. From 1971 to 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency funded the Alcohol Safety Action Projects (ASAP) program in 35 communities around the country. In the cours.! of this program, 200,000 DWIs were referred Problem to treatment. Figure 7-3 (Nichols et aI., Drinker 1980) shows the proportion of them who fell into each of three drinking catego­ 50% ries: social drinker, problem drinker, and Social unidentified drinker type (this type is Drinker most likely to include developing prob­ lem drinkers). DWIs who are "social 32% drinkers" are generally assigned to education programs of 10 to 16 hours in length over a 4- to 6-week period. Problem drinkers are generally assigned to a more intensive and more expensive treatment program covering a 3- to 6- month period (NHTSA, 1984).

Programs for Socia) Drinkers Source: Nichols et al. (1980) Number referred: 200,000 One of the earliest specialized pro­ grams for social drinkers was an educa­ of drinking and driving, their attitudes (NHTSA et aI., 1978). Interestingly, tion program developed in Phoenix, regarding drinking and driving will giving the social drinkers home study Arizona, and later sponsored by the change. This in tum will ultimately materials and allowing them to study on American Automobile Association. This change their DWI behavior. This con­ their own, returning only to take a test, program, entitled "DWI Phoenix," con­ cept would be best applied to social sists of lecture-type sessions on the drinkers who are able to change their was as effective in reducing recidivism dangers of drinking and driving with behavior based on a better understanding as the traditional lecture method of groups of up to 30 offenders. of the problem. instruction (Reis, 1983).

36 Short-Term Treatment Programs for assistance they needed to relax and evaluation. The current state of our Problem Drinkers become more assertive and effective in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of social and work situations. The treat­ short-tenn (less than six months) educa­ While the social drinker can be ment program therefore focused on tion and treatment programs for DWls helped to a small extent by education helping individuals to be more effective indicates that these programs can pro­ programs, problem drinkers show no in their dealings with others and in­ duce a small (10%) reduction in re­ improvement as a result of attending cluded relaxation therapy and other cidivism among social drinkers. But so educational programs. In fact, evidence means for reducing tension without far they have achieved no success in collected during the ASAP period indi­ turning to alcohol. However, evaluation reducing the probability that problem cated that problem drinkers did worse of this therapy indicated that, if any­ drinkers will reoffend. when exposed to large classroom ses­ thing, it increased rather than decreased Long-Term Treatment Programs sions as compared to smaller group the probability that the problem drinkers treatment procedures (Nichols et aI., would recidivate (Nichols et aI., 1978). In 1975, California passed a law 1978). A third short-term program has re­ permitting offenders guilty of mUltiple Because it was recognized that the cently been developed by Dr. Harvey drunk driving offenses to retain their problem drinker would require more Siegal at Wright State University Medi­ licenses provided they participated in a intensive treatment, two types of short­ cal School in Dayton, Ohio (Siegal, year-long treatment program. The pro­ term therapy programs were widely 1982). Called the Weekend Intervention gram had to include at a minimum a evaluated during the ASAP period. The Program (WIP), the program is based on weekly therapy session and an individu­ first type of program was based on an intensive two- or three-day "interven­ al interview with either a therapist or traditional group therapy and generally tion" with the drunk driver. During this probation official every other week. involved one session a week for three to time, the emphasis is threefold: 1) The passage of this law provided the six months. Careful scientific evaluation diagnosis (of both the alcohol problem opportunity to evaluate the effect of of these efforts using random assign­ and any drug addiction); 2) educating 10nger-telID treatment programs. Evalua­ ment to treatment and no-treatment the offender about drinking and driving; tion efforts were established by both the conditions demonstrated that the short­ and, finally, 3) making an initial effort Federal Government, through the De­ term group therapy program was inef­ to break through the "denial" (refusal to partment of Transportation (Reis, 1983), fective in reducing DWI arrests among admit the drinking problem) that charac­ and the State (Sadl(;;r and Perrine, 1984). problem drinkers (Nichols et aI., 1978). terizes the problem drinker. In the U.S. Department of Transporta­ The second type of short-term pro­ The result of this intensive interven­ tion study conducted in Sacramento, gram evaluated was developed as an tion program is a detailed diagnosis of California, convicted drunk drivers were alternative to traditional alcohol treat­ the drinking andlor drug problem and a randomly assigned to a year-long ment programs. This program was based treatment referral plan. The problem therapy program that included biweekly on the theory that problem drinking was was initially established to handle drunk individual interviews. These multiple principally a "symptom" of an underly­ drivers in Ohio who received the offenders were compared with DWIs ing personality problem. An effective mandatory three-day jail sentence for who received no treatment. Both groups way of treating this health problem, first offenders. At the end of the WIP were allowed to retain their licenses. then, should be to deal with the session, the diagnosis and refenal plan Under these conditions, the treated underlying personality problem. Empha­ are provided to the court, which has the drivers had significantly fewer DWI sis on the drinking issue could be option of making the refenal a condition arrests than the untreated drivers in the reduced because the drinking would tend of probation. two-year period during and following to disappear as the personality problem The WIP program is not designed to treatment. However, there were no sig­ was alleviated. The theoretical assump­ cure problem drinking but, rather, to be nificant differences in the number of tion was that problem drinkers drank an intervention that begins the recovery accidents between the treated and un­ because they felt ineffective and process. The effectiveness of this pro­ treated group. powerless in dealing with people when cedure in terms of motivating problem In the study conducted by the Califor­ they were sober. Alcohol provided the drinkers into treatment is still under nia Motor Vehicle Department, drivers

37

----~-----~---~ who received year-long treatment and licenses. Thus, while the drivers who alcohol-related accidents, though not were able to retain their licenses were lost their licenses did continue to drive enough to equal the highway safety compared with drivers who did not to some extent, and did continue to helve impact of taking away the license. receive treatment and, as a result, accidents, the evidence suggests that Moreover, many of the non-treated suffered a license suspension for six they had fewer accidents than they suspended drivers did not reinstate their months to a year or more. In this study, would have had if they had retained licenses after their suspension so thac the untreated drivers who lost their their full driving privileges. The treated they continued to be without licenses for licenses had the better driving records. individuals (who were able to retain up to three or four years. As can be seen in Figure 7-4, the their licenses) apparently continued to As a result of these data, the Federal drivers who were treated and retained drive as they had before and thus had a Government emphasizes that the license their licenses had approximately the considerably larger number of non­ sanction should not be traded off ag~.inst same number of alcohol-related acci­ alcohol-related accidents. On the other treatment programs. Taking away the dents as the untreated, suspended-li­ hand, they had fewer alcohol-related license redtlces accidents more than cense group. However, thcy had accidents than the drivers whose licenses even a long-term treatment program for significantly more non-alcohol-related were suspended. This indicates that the problem drinkers. Nevertheless, the re­ accidents than the drivers who lost their treatment had some effect on the sults of both the Federal and State studies of California's long-term treat­ ment program for problem drinkers indicate that such programs can help reduce recidivism and the proportion of Figure 7-4 Accident Rates for Two Groups of Multiple Offender accidents that are alcohol-related. OWls (California) Two major problems arise in regard to use of the long-term (minimum one­ year) treatment programs required to effectively rehabilitate problem drinkers. First, most States do not provide suffi­ cient sanctioning authorit~T and/or re­

programs a feasible sentencing option, "0 30 particularly for first offenders who are 8 problem drinkers. Although several .... 25 '- Q) States now mandate a one-year license Co suspension for drinking and driving, the Q) 20 .... Treated data just presented indicate that trading ~ .... • License c: 15 off the license suspension for treatment Q) not suspended "0 is not desirable from a highway safety '(3 10 standpoint. Reducing the relatively low t.) Not treated co fines (less than $500) assessed in most co>- 5 License Q) O suspended States is f10t a sufficient incentive to .t 0 persuade :m individual to accept a year­ c: co Tctal Alcohol-related Non-alcohol- long therapy program. Moreover, even a Q) accidents related 30-day jail sentence does not provide ~ accidents accidents sufficient time to treat the problem drinker. A second problem with long-term Source: Sadler and Perrine (1984) treatment of problem drinkers is the issue of equity with respect to social

38 drinkers who commit the same offense. whether the courts can, with equity, set problem drinking process and an impor­ This problem arises principally with first considerably tougher requirements for tant opportunity for health officials to offenders, one-third to one-half of the problem drinker than for the social take action to reduce this serious whom may be social drinkers. Social drinker where the offense is the same. A national health problem. If DWIs who drinkers do not require a long treatment more punitive set of sanctions for an are problem drinkers are incarcerated, it program. They can be motivated into a offender because he or she has a health should be within facilities with the short-term education program with the problem may not be viewed as resources to make a meaningful inter­ relatively light penalties that are applied equitable. vention in the drinking problem by to first offenders. The first-offender initiating therapy. Moreover, sufficient problem drinker, on the other hand, resources must be available to ensure cannot benefit from short-term education SUMMARY that treatment continues for a minimum programs and must be motivated into The drunk driving offense offers an of one year regardless of the individual's long-term treatment. There is a question important opportunity to intervene in the status within the corrections system.

39 Section 8 Considerations for Sanctioning Drunk Drivers

In recent years, communities have expe~ These characteristics of the typical of broad goals and objectives. This will rienced an increase in the volume of DWI offender demand serious consid~ enhance the program's chances for criminal cases. This has placed further eration by those advocating and plan­ success. demands on an already overburdened ning programs to control drunk driving. Unfortunately, legislative mandates court, prosecution, and detention system. The drunk driver problem cannot simply for controlling drunk drivers have not Many local correctional facilities are be left to the local (or State) corrections always followed this scenario. Never­ faced with severe problems due to department. Combatting drunk driving theless, it is incumbent upon commu­ overcrowding. The cost of building involves critical activities-such as pub­ nities to clearly define realistic goals for secure facilities is staggering. Many lic education, sustained treatment, and correctional programs for drunk drivers jurisdictions are unable to afford the license actions-that normally are not and to specify how these goals will be cost of building and maintaining these within the control of local correctional met. Communities should also be thor­ facilities. Yet, as a result of public agencies. Because of this, and because oughly familiar with national standards demands for more incarceration, local of the large number of drunk drivers, for good correctional practice to ensure jails are receiving more and more dealing successfully with the drunk that their programs adhere to these sentenced offenders. driver problem requires a community standards. The following guidelines for Many individuals serving time in wide commitment of concern and re­ correctional programming for DWls local jails repr~sent a minimal risk to sources before, during, and after any summarize much of the material pre­ public safety. However, they must be period of mandatory confinement. sented in earlier sections of this volume. held accountable for their crimes. Local It is important for communities to 1. Individuals convicted of drunk communities can best accomplish this keep in mind that focusing on the driving are criminals and, as such, through the use of controls and sanc­ special characteristics of drunk drivers­ should be subject to the range of tions consistent with effective correc­ low-risk, non-violent offenders with sanctions applied to other convicted tional management and the need to . drinking problems-does not imply that offenders, up to and including protect the community. The community drunk drivers should have their own incarceration. must decide how offenders will be facilities or programs separate from deterred, punished, and rehabilitated, other groups of offenders with special In the past, drunk drivers were rarely and if and how they will make needs. Many existing facilities and sentenced to jail but, rather, received a restitution. programs are appropriate for drunk fine or short license suspension. Public The cost of a correctional program for drivers. Similarly, facilities and pro­ and legislative attitudes toward the criminal offenders principally depends grams developed principally in response drunk driving offense have changed, on the following factors: to the influx of convicted DWIs into the resulting in tougher sanctions, up to and 1. Number of offenders corrections system can be used for other induding incarceration. At the same 2. Length of sentences types of low-risk, non~violent offenders, time, it is important that this change be 3. Amount of supervision required especially those with alcohol problems. reflected in sanctioning procedures that 4. Programs and services that must A community's plan for dealing with are equitable, consistently applied, and be provided drunk drivers must therefore be com~ effective. Sanctions for drunk drivers 5. Extent of offender payments prehensive and take into consideration should be based on the best available In general, drunk drivers as a group the interests of all agencies concerned, data about the effectiveness of various have the following characteristics with including police, prosecutors, defense sanctions for reducing drunk driving in respect to those factors: attorneys, judges, correctional officials, general and for preventing repetition of 1. Large numbers treatment specialists, and State motor this offense by individuals who have 2. Short sentences vehicle officials. Ideally, each agency's already served sentences for DWI. 3. Require moderate supervision areas of responsibility should be clearly 4. Require considerable treatment defined. Also, careful planning should 2. The general policy of placing services take place before legislation is drafted to offenders under correctional 5. Can afford to pay substantial ensure that the legislation itself is jurisdiction in the least restrictive fees shaped by this systemwide consideration appropriate programs should apply to

41 convicted drunk drivers as well as ing and that initiate referral to long-term ers, the vast majority of mUltiple other offenders. Jail alternatives treatment programs in the community. offenders have a health problem: prob­ involving work release, community lem drinking. The shock of conviction service, and intensive probation 4. Medical support and detoxification and placement under correctional control supervision should be considered. treatment should be available for can provide strong motivation for seek­ DWI offenders. ing education and treatment for their While some drunk drivers may be problem. Programs for drunk drivers prone to violent behavior, the majority National standards for good correc­ should require appropriate education and are non-violent and do not represent a tional practice require that community treatment. These programs should be risk to other offenders or to the public. residential centers and local detention funded by offender fees, when possible, As a result, they are often good facilities be able to provide 24-hour with alternate provision for indigent candidates for residential and non­ emergency medical care for all offenders offenders. residential programs. Placing drunk (ACA Standards 2-2120, 2-5266). Stan­ drivers in secure facilities is generally dard 2-5281 specifies tllat, if performed 6. DWI offenders under correctional neither cost-effective nor necessary. at a correctional facility, detoxification supervision in the commnnity should must be done under medical supervi­ be carefully monitored to ensure that sion. DWI offenders are less likely than they are not drinking. 3. All drunk driving offenders should public inebriates to report to correctional be screened for drinking problems. facilities with an acute alcohol intoxica­ The most appropriate correctional tion problem that requires medical inter­ program for many DWIs may be The requirement for diagnosing the assignment to a work release facility extent of a drinking problem is not vention. However, because a large portion of drunk drivers are problem and/or to non-residential community unique to the drunk driver. National drinkers and the experience of being service. Where DWI offenders are free standards for good correctional practice incarcerated can be highly stressful, to move about the community, it is require a full medical screening for all important to monitor their activities to inmates admitted to a jail (ACA Stan­ DWI offenders frequently do report to jails in a highly intoxicated condition. ensure they are not drinking while under dard 2-5273). Diagnosis of alcohol use, correctional supervision. This provides a including amounts and frequency, is a Correctional facilities need to be able to provide detoxification treatment either two-fold benefit. First, it assures that the part of this screening. individual is not a threat to the com­ Research conducted during the last within the facility itself or at some nearby location. munity through driving while intoxi­ decade by the Federal and State govern­ cated. Second, the requirement to ments has shown that from one-third to remain abstinent should assist in treat­ one-half of the drunk drivers arrested for 5. Convicted drunk drivers should have an opportunity for alcohol ment programs aimed at reducing the the first time and 9 out of 10 of those offender's drinking problem. arrested twice or more have a drinking education or treatment. problem. In many jurisdictiollS, the National correctional standards call 7. While suspension and revocation of drinking status of DWI offenders is for each re~ident in a community driver licenses is and should remain diagnosed as part of the pre-sentence residential center to have a written, the responsibility of the State motor investigation. If drinking status is not personalized program plan that incorpo­ vehicle department, corrections determined prior to sentencing, a pro­ rates the offender'S needs, problems, officials should estabBsh rules that gram should exist to permit an accurate capabilities, and limitations (ACA Stan­ prohibit driving by any offender who diagnosis of the DWI offender's drink­ dard 2-2144). The standards for local poses a threat to others. ing problem. Short-term jail sentences detention facilities require counseling (48 to 72 hours) offer an opportunity for and program services for inmates with Because of the nature of the offense, intensive diagnostic screening. Short drug and alcohol addiction problems drunk drivers are likely to be serving a sentences also present an opportunity (ACA Standard 2-5371). period of license suspension. This poses for programs that begin to break through While one-third to one-half of first­ no problem for managing the offender the "denial" that typifies problem drink- offense drunk drivers are social drink- who is continuously incarcerated. It may

42 be desirable to establish rules barring or fines for the correctional services 12. When drunk drivers are placed in driving for all DWls under correctional they receive. secure facilities, adequate provisions supervision, including those who have should be made for ensuring their safety. retained or regained a valid driver's 10. A special effort should he made license. For drunk drivers in work hy criminal justice officials in concert National standards for good correc­ release or community service programs, with employers to permit the DWI tional practice call for certain categories the inability to drive may produce a offender to preserve employment. of offenders to be managed separately to special transportation problem. Because assure the safe and efficient operation of Because the payment of fees can many work release and community local detention facilities (ACA Standard reduce the tax burden of correctional service facilities are located near public 2-5354). These categories include com­ programs, it is important to provide transportation, however, this should not munity custody inmates (for example, DWI offenders with an opportunity to be a major problem. inmates on work release) and inmates work and earn an income. Most drunk with special problems (alcoholics, drug drivers have a job at the time of 8. 'freatment and supervision of DWI addicts, the mentally disturbed). conviction and sentencing. This suggests offenders who are problem drinkers The typical DWI offender is not an that work release facilities or after-hours should normally continue for not less experienced criminal and is not used to community service and treatment pro­ than one year. the jail environment. While some drunk grams may be appropriate for these Research supported by National High­ drivers may be violent, the vast majority offenders. way Traffic Safety Administration and are non-violent. They have a higher the State of California has demonstrated potential for being victimized than other that to achieve a significant traffic safety 11. Weekend sentencing should be types of offenders. Therefore, it is benefit, problem drinkers must partici­ avoided when possible. generally necessary to segregate DWI pate in an intensive treatment program offenders from offenders who have a The use of weekend or other special for at least one year. Therefore, a higher potential for violence. Moreover, jail sentences for the convenience of the program for DWIs who are diagnosed to drunk drivers may present a special risk offender exacerbates the overcrowding be problem drinkers should include for suicide; they are likely to have been problem for corrections officials. A jail supervision for at least one year. drinking when admitted, and the shock that must accept a large influx of DWI of incarceration is likely to produce offender:; over the weekend needs sub­ 9. Communities should consider significant depression. Therefore, spe­ stantially more beds than a facility requiring that convicted drunk drivers cial supervision is frequently necessary where the offender population is rela­ pay a significant portion, or all, of the during the first few hours of tively the same throughout the week. expense related to their correctional confinement. Further, weekends are a high crime programs and treatment programs. period in most areas. Adding the DWI 13. Drunk drivers should be required Drunk driving offenders tend to have weekend sentence to this already serious to provide restitution to their victims higher incomes and greater financial weekend overcrowding simply com­ or society when possible. resources than other types of offenders. pounds the difficulties for corrections A higher proportion of these offenders officials. Drunk drivers have a high potential are employed. The nature of their If the jail term is as short as two to for causing serious injury to their offense assures that most have at least three days (the term mandated in many victims. It is important that efforts be minimal financial resources-they were States for second offenders), the term made to assure that DWI offenders driving a car, which, in most cases, they can often be served on a vacation or make whatever restitution they can when own, and they were able to consume leave status. If the jail sentence is the drunk driving episode has rel/ulted in large amounts of alcohol, which sug~ longer and is to be served over, say 15 injury or property damage. When there gests an above~average discretionary to 30 weekends, it would appear more is no accident and no victim (as is the budget. For these reasons, DWI offend­ appropriate to sentence the offender to a case in the majority of DWI arrests), ers often have the resources to pay fees work release center. restitution through community service or

43

------by payment into a victim's compensation Congress of a law providing incentives the corrections alternatives so that rea­ fund should be a part of the corrections to the States to pass laws requiring that sonable decisions can be made in program. drunk. drivers serve jail sentences. sentencing DWIs relative to other This trend to use jail as a sanction for offenders. In addition, establishing ac­ drunk. driving catches local jails in the cepted relationships between fines, pro­ SUMMARY United States at a time when many­ bation restriction, community service, There is considerable disagreement particularly those in large urban areas­ and incarceration will offer the courts among the experts as to the best are already overcrowded, and when and corrections officials maximum flex­ methods for reducing the deaths and many jails, large and small, are under­ ibility in dealing with limitations in injuries resulting from alcohol-related staffed and under court order to reduce local correctional facilities and pro­ crashes. Despite this, public concern their inmate population and/or improve grams. By assessing their total needs, with the DWI problem has led to services. If DWIs are to compete with communities can ensure that their cor­ increasingly severe drunk. driving laws other offenders for the limited space rectional responses are both cost-effec­ and stricter enforcement of these laws. available in local detention facilities and tive and appropriate. During this last year, this concern has correctional programs, then it will be culminated in the passage by the U. S. important to develop a logical scaling of

44 APPENDIX A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT ENTITLED

"THE IMPACT OF TWO-DAY JAIL SENTENCES FOR DRUNK DRIVERS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA"

by Carol L. Falkowski

Final Report on NHTSA Contract DTNH22-82-05110 October 1984

available from NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE Springfield, Virginia 22161

45 Executive Summary

This is the final report of a research part, has been able to effec~ self-reported changes in drink­ contract undertaken collaboratively by tively accommodate the DWI ing and driving behavior for the Minnesota Department of Human offenders serving two-day sen­ Hennepin County drinkers. Services, Chemical Dependency Divi~ tences. There is no chronic 8. In regard to self~reported sion, and the Minnesota Department of overcrowding. changes in drinking and driving Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, 4. Drunk drivers who served their behavior, daily drinkers are the and funded, in part, by the National two days in jail are more likely exception to most patterns Highway Traffic Safety Administration than those who did not, to found. Although their number is (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Trans~ believe that the policy is fair quite small (N = 5), this sug~ portation. It concerns the impact of two­ and that it should be continued. gests that a different approach is day jail sentences for convicted drunlc 5. There has been a statistically necessary for the chronic, daily drivers, a judicial policy which began in significant average monthly re­ drinker. 1982 in Hennepin County, Minnesota. duction of 35 night~time injury The key elements of the Hennepin The major findings are: accidents coincident with the County experience which contribute to adoption of the policy and after its apparent success are: 1. In spite of the fact that two-day a two-month lag time in Hen­ 1. The municipal bench has re­ jail sentences are voluntarily nepin County. This is a 20 mained committed to the policy imposed by the municipal percent reduction when com~ over time in spite of a large judges (vs. statutorily required), pared to the pre-policy monthly turnover in judges. there is a high degree of judicial average. There has also been a 2. The Hennepin County Adult compliance. Even after two marked increase in the number Corrections Facility generally years and a large turnover of of DWI arrests. has been able to accommodate judges, roughly 82 percent of 6. The number of traffic fatalities the influx of additional DWI the DWI offenders are sent to in Hennepin County has de­ offenders. jail for two days. clined but not significantly more 3. The adoption of the policy 2. There has not been an increase than in neighboring Ramsey occurred when the public outcry in the number of DWI trials County which did not have a against drunk driving was grow­ held, nor has there been an DWI jail policy during the time ing and thus, in an atmosphere increase in the length of time periods considered. of public support. from arrest to sentencing in 7. Frequency of alcohol consump­ 4. The adoption of the policy was DWI cases. tion and a perceived increase in accompanied by a simultaneous 3. The Hennepin County Adult the likelihood of punishment are increase in DWI enforcement Corrections Facility for the most the strongest determinants of activity.

47 References

Adams, S., 1975. Evaluative Research in Corrections: A Practice. American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Practical Guide, 132 pp. Law Enforcement Assistance Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Administration Report. Available from U.S. Government American Institute of Architects, 1983. 1983 Architecture for Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Justice Exhibition, 71 pp. Available from American Institute Allen, E.H., Carlson, E.W., Parks, E.C. and Seiter, R.P., of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 1978. Halfway Houses, 111 pp. U.S. Department of Justice, 20006. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, American Public Health Association, 1976. Standards for Washington, DC 20531. Health Services in Correctional Institutions, 119 pp. American Correctional Association (ACA), 1981a. Classifica­ Available from American Public Health Association, 1015 tion. ACA Monograph Series 1. No.4. Available from Eighteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. American Correctional Association, 4321 Hartwick Road, Austin, 1., 1983. "Assessing the New Generation of Prison L-208, College Park, MD 20740. Classification Models," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 29, ___, 1981b. Standards for Adult Local Detelltion Facilities No.4, pp. 561-576. (ALDF), 2nd edition. Available from American Correctional Baird, c., 1983. Report on Intensive Supervision Programs in Association, 4321 Hartwick Road, L-208, College Park, MD Probation and Parole, 44 pp. Available from the National 20740. Institute of Corrections Information Center, 1790 - 30th ___, 1981 c. Standards for Adult Commul1lty Residential Street, Boulder, CO 80301. Services (ACRS), 2nd edition. Available from American Baton Rouge City Court, 1984. "Community Service Programs: Correctional Association, 4321 Hartwick Road, L-208, An Analysis of Costs and Benefits." Unpublished. Available College Park, MD 20740. from Baton Rouge City Court, Department of Probation and ___, 1981d. Standards for Adult Probation and Parole Field Rehabilitation, Baton Rouge, LA. Services (APPFS), 2nd edition. Available from American Beck, J.L., 1981. "Employment, Community Treatment Center Correctional Association, 4321 Hartwick Road, L-208, Placement, and Recidivism: A Study of Released Federal College Park, MD 20740. Offenders," Federal Probation, December 1981, pp. 3-8. ___, 1983a. Design Guide for Secure Adult Facilities, 207 Blackmore, 1., and Welsh, 1., 1983. "Selective Incapacitation: pp. Available from American Correctional Association, 4321 Sentencing According to Risk," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. Hartwick Road, L-208, College Park, MD 20740. 29, No.4, pp. 504-528. ___, 1983b. Legal Responsibility and Authority of Correc­ Blumstein, A., and Kadane, 1.B., 1983. "An Approach to tional Officers, 64 pp. Available from American Correctional Allocation of Scarce Imprisonment Resources," Crime and Association, 4321 Hartwick Road, L-208, College Park, MD Delinquency, Vol. 29, No.4, pp. 546~560. 20740. Bowker, L.H., 1980. Prison Victimization. Elsevier-North ___, 1983c. Direct01Y of Correctional Institutions and Holland, New York, 227 pp. Agencies, 400 pp. Available from American Correcti.onal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice, 1980. "Contract Association, 4321 Hartwick Road, L-208, College Park, MD Residential Services Monitoring Report." Unpublished. 20740. Available from Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC 20534. ___, 1983-85. National Jail and Adult Detemion Directory, ___, 1982. "Statement of Work." Contract Community 350 pp. Available from American Correctional Association, Correctional Center. Unpublished. Available from Bureau of 4321 Hartwick Road, L-208, College Park, MD 20740. Prisons, Washington, DC 20534. ___, 1984a. Vital Statistics in Corrections, 57 pp. Available -_, 1983. "Hope Village."'Unpublished paper. Available from American Correctional Association, 4321 Hartwick from Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC 20534. Road, L-208, College Park, MD 20740. California League of Alternative Service Programs (CLASP), ___, 1984b. "Conditions of Confinement, Facility Perfor­ n.d. "Standards and Guidelines for Program Operations," 50 mance Inventory," 31 Pi). Unpublished report. Available from pp. Available from CLASP, 523 Fourth Street, Suite 207, American Correctional Association, 4321 Hartwick Road, San Rafael, CA 94901. L-208, College Park, MD 20740. ___, 1983. 1983 Index, Member Program Activities. 71 pp. American Institute of Architects (AlA), 1963. "The Selection of Available from CLASP, 523 Fourth Street, Suite 207, San an Architect." In AlA, Architects' Handbook of Professional Rafael, CA 94901.

49 Camp, G., and Camp, C., 1982. The Corrections Yearbook: Statistics, Washington, DC 20531. Instant Answers to Key Questions in Corrections, Criminal Division of Community Corrections, 1981. "El Paso County Justice Institute, Pound Ridge, NY. Division of Community Corrections: Work Release Pro­ Carter-Goble Associates, Inc., 1983. An Analysis of Alternative posal." Unpublished. Available from Division of Community Facility Needs for a DWI Treatment Program. Available from Corrections, 5250 North Nevada, Colorado Springs, CO the Office of the County Executive, Prince George's County, 80907. Upper Marlboro, MD 20772. English, 1. W., 1983. Early License Revocation for Driving ___, 1984. "Evaluation of Pre-Manufactured Housing for While Under the Influence: Model Revocation all Admin­ Correctional Purposes," Draft Abstract Report, 17 pp. istrative Determination (ROAD) Luw, Revised Edition, National Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC 20534. December 1983. Available for National Highway Traffic Carter, R.M., Cushman, R., and Trapp, P.P., 1980. Community Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, Correctional Centers, Program Models, 228 pp. National DC 20590. Institute of Justice, Washington, DC 20530. Falkowski, C.L., 1984. "The Impact of Two-Day Jail Sentences Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, 1982. Accredita­ for Drunk Drivers in Hennepin County, Minnesota." Final tion: Blueprint for Corrections. 18 pp. Commission on Report, Contract No. DTNH-22-S2-05110. Available from Accreditation for Corrections, 6110 Executive Blvd., Suite National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 600, Rockville, MD 20852. Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Cressey, D.R., 1974. "Law, Order and the Motorist." In Hood, Fell, 1. C., 1983. "Alcohol Involvement in the United States R., ed., Crime, Criminology and Public Policy, Heinemann, Traffic Accidents: Where It Is Changing." Proceedings of the London, U.K., pp. 213-234. Ninth International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Department of Justice, U.S. (DOJ), n.d. Crime Victim Safety, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Compensation: Program Models. National Institute of Filkins, L.D., Mortimer, R.G., Post, D.V., and Chapman, Justice, Washington, DC 20530. M.M., 1973. Field Evaluation of Court Procedures for ___, 1975. Evaluative Research in Corrections: A Practical Identifying Problem Drinkers. National Highway Traffic Guide, 132 pp. Available from U.S. Government Printing Safety Administration, Technical Report DOT-HS-031-2-303. Office, Washington, DC 20402. Stock No. 2700-00270. Available from National Highway Traffic Safety Administra­ __, 1978. Profile of Jai/lnmates: 1978, NCJ-65412, 54 pp. tion, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC 20531. Gavin, 1., 1983. "Introduction: Prison Policy Reform Ten Years ___ , 1980. Federal Standards for Prisons and Jails, 142 pp. Later," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 29, No.4, pp. 495-503. Available from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Gettinger, S., 1983. "Intensive Supervision, Can It Rehabilitate Affairs, Washington, DC 20530. Probation," Corrections Magazine. April 1984, pp. 7-17. ___, 1982. "Suicide Prevention Program." OP!: Medical; Grube, J.w., and Kearney, K.A., 1983. "A 'Mandatory' Jail No. 6341.1, Effective Date July 26, 1982, 6 pp. Available Sentence for Drinking and Driving," Evaluation Review, Vol. from U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Prison System, 7, No.2, pp. 235-246. Washington, DC 20534. Harper and Buzinec, 1983. "Dade County Stockade Expan­ ___, 1983a. Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice: sion." GSA Project No. 5202-003. Available from NIC The Data. NCJ-87068, lOS pp. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Information Center, 1790 - 30th Street, Boulder, CO 80301. Washington, DC 20531. Harris, M.K., 1979. Community Service by Offenders. 87 pp. ___, 1983b. Preliminary Draft, Jailing Drunk Drivers: National Institute of Corrections, 320 First Street, NW, Impacts on the Criminal Justice System. Final report NCJ Washington, DC 20534. 95437 issued 1984. Available from National Criminal Justice Hill, W.R., and Sanok, R.L., 1984. "JaiJ Suicide: Assessment Reference Service, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. and Prevention," The National Sheriff, Vol. 35, No.8, pp. ___, 1983c. Prisoners and Alcohol. Bureau of Justice 12-16. Statistics Bulletin NCJ-86223, 4 pp. Bureau of Justice Holden, R. T., and Stewart, L. T., 1981. Te1lnessee DUI Statistics, Washillgton, DC 20531. Probation Follow-Up Demonstratioll Project. Tennessee ___• 1984. The 1983 Jail Census. Bureau of Justice, Division of Highway Safety Planning. Nashville, TN. Final Statistics Bulletin NCJ-95536, 10 pp. Bureau of Justice Report (Draft). Report No. DOT-HS-5-0 1199, National

50 Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29201. 20590. Miller, W.H., 1983. "Stop the Drunk Driver First, Cure Him Hom, S., 1984. "The Cost Benefits of Podular Design and Later." The Evansville Press, December 1, 1983, p. 15. Directly Supervised Correctional Facilities." Unpublished Montgomery County, Maryland, 1984. "History of Work paper. Available from NIC Information Center, 1790 - 30th Release in Montgomery County." Unpublished report. Street, Boulder, CO 80301. Available from Department of Corrections and Rehbilitation, Hudson, 1., and Chesney, S., 1977. "Research on Restitution: 50 Court House Square, Rockville, MD 20851. A Review and Assessment." In Galoway and Hudson, eds. Nacci, P.L., and Kane, T.R., 1984. "Sex and Sexual Offender Restitution in Theory and Action. Lexington Books, Aggression in Federal Prisons: Inmate Involvement and D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington, MA. Employment Impact." Federal Probation, Vol. 48, No.1, lsele, w.P., 1978. Health Care in Jails. 25 pp. Available from pp. 46-53. the American Medical Association, 535 N. Dearborn Street. National Council on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA), 1981. Chicago, IL 60610. And Darkness Closes In: National Study of Jail Suicides. Kassebaum, G., Seldin, S., Nelligan, P., Takeuchi, D., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Wayson, B., Monkman, G., and Meyer, P., 1978. Con­ Department of Transportation, n.d. (a). How to Save Lives tracting for Correctional Services in the Community, Vol. 1, and Reduce Injuries: A Citizens Activist Guide to Effectively 34 pp. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Law, Fight Drunk Driving. Report No. DOT-HS-806-250, 131 pp. 320 Firs! Street, NW, Washington, DC 20534. Available from National Highway Traffic Safety Administra­ Kerle, K.E., and Ford, ER., 1982. The State of Our Nation's tion, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Jails, 1982, 233 pp. Available from the National Sheriffs' ___, n.d.(b). Who's Going to Call the First Meeting? Action Association, 1450 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Guide for Local Drunk Driving Programs. Report No. DOT­ Kidd, C.w., 1984. "Mecklenburg County Jail Annex." Panel HS-806-385, 73 pp. Available from National Highway Traffic on Innovations in Local Minimum Security Corrections, Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, presented at the Conference on Jail Handling of Drunk DC 20590. Driving and Non-Support Offenders, June 28-29, Columbia, ___, 1982a. National Accident Sampling System. Available SC. Available from Sheriff's Department of Corrections, from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Mecklenburg County, NC. Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Kraj ick , K., 1982. "The Work Ethic Approach to Punishment," ___, 1982b. Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS). Corrections Magazine, Vol. 8, No.5, pp. 7-19. Available from National Highway Traffic Safety Administra­ Landrum, 1., Miles, S., Neff, R., Pritchard, T., Roebuck, 1., tion, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Wells-Parker, E., and Windham, G., 1982. Mississippi DUl ___, 1982c. "Alcohol and Highway Safety," Police Chief, Probation Follow-Up Project. Report No. DOT-HS-806-274, Vol. 49, No. 12, December 1982. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, ___, 1982d. Alcohol Involvement ill Traffic Accidents: DC 20590. Recent Estimates from the National Cellfer for Statistics and Lockwood, D., 1978. "Maintaining Manhood: Prison Violence Analysis. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington. Precipitated by Aggressive Sexual Approaches," 17 pp. Paper DC 20590. ' presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal ___, 1983a. A Digest of State Alcohol-Highway Safety Justice Sciences, 1978. Related Legislation. 2nd edition, 312 pp. Available from the ___, 1980. Prison Sexual Violence, Elsevier-North Holland, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh New York, p. 45. Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. McManus, P.D., and Barclay, L.Z., 1981. Community ___, 1983b. A Guide to Self-Sufficient Funding qf Alcohol Corrections Act: A Technical Assistance Mallual, 37 pp. Traffic Safety Programs. Report No. DOT-HS-806-432. U.S. Available from American Correctional Association, 4321 Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Stock Hartwick Road, L-208, College Park, MD 20740. No. 0-114-439. Memory, 1.M., 1984. "Jail Suicides in South Carolina: ___, 1984. Alcohol and Highway Safety 1984: A Rel'iew of 1978-1984," 8 pp. Unpublished paper. Available from Office the State if Knowledge. Final Report on Contract of the Governor, Division of Public Safety Programs, 1205 DTNH22-83-P-05062. Available from National Highway 51 Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Sheriff, Vol. 36, No.2, pp. 33-43. Washington, DC 20590. New York Times, 1984. "Electronic Monitor Turns Home Into ___, 1985. Procedures for Identifying Problem Drinkers .. A Jail," New York Times, February 12, 1984. Screening and Assessment Package for Courts and Treatment Nichols, J.L., Weinstein, E.B., Ellingstad, V.S., and Reis, Agencies: A Self-Instructional Guide. Available from the R.E., 1980. "The Effectiveness of Education and Treatment National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Programs for Drinking Drivers: A Decade of Evaluation." In Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Goldberg, ed., Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Vol. 3, pp. National Institute of Corrections (NIC), U.S. Department of 1298-1328. Almovist and Wiksell International, Stockholm, Justice, n.d.(a). "Planning of New Institutions," Information Sweden. and Application Packet, 7 pp. Available from NIC Jail Center, Nichols, lL., Weinstein, E.B., Eilingstad, V.S., and 1790 - 30th Street, Boulder, CO 80301. Struckman-Johnson, D.C., 1978. "The Specific Deterrent __, n.d.(b). "Planning of New Institutions, Phase One, Effect of ASAP Education and Rehabilitation Programs," Community Meetings." Available from Voorhis Associates, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 10, No.4, pp. 177-187. Inc., 5796 - 51st Street, Boulder, CO 80301. O'Brien, E., Fisher, M., and Austern, D.l, 1981. Practical ___, n.d.(c). Prison Classification: A Model Systems Law for Correctional Personnel, 249 pp. West Publishing Approach, 52 pp. Available from NIC Information Center, Co., New York. 1790 - 30th Street, Boulder, CO 80301. Oriana House Inc., n.d. DWI School: Program Package, 23 pp. ___• 1982. The Cost of Constitutional Jails. Available from Available from Oriana, P.O. Box 1501, Akron, OH 44309. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Pioneer Cooperative Affiliation 1980. "Draft Proposal for a 16- ___, 1983a. Fees for Supervision. 30 pp. NIC Information Bed Facility for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Offenders Center, 1790 - 30th Street, Boulder, CO 80301. from the King County Jail." Unpublished. Available from ___ , 1983b. "New Generation Jails," Corrections Informa­ Pioneer Cooperative Affiliation, 5614 - 27th Avenue, NW, tion Series, NIC Information Center, 1790 - 30th Street, Seattle, WA. Boulder, CO 80301. Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving, 1983. Final National Institute of Justice, 1983. Mandatory Confinement for Report, No. 427-056-814/233, 39 pp. U.S. Government Drunk Driving: Impacts on the Criminal Justice System, 28 Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. pp. Available from National Institute of Justice, Washington, Prince George's County (P.G.C.) Department of Corrections, DC 20530. 1984. Driving While Intoxicated Facility: An Overview. National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA), 1985. Available from Director, Prince George's County Department Victims Rights and Services: A Legislative Directory, 1985. of Corrections, 5310 Douglas Street, Upper Marlboro, MD Available from NOVA, 1757 Perk Road, NW, Washington, 20772. DC 20010. Pryor, D.E., and Smith, W.E, 1982. "Significant Research National Safety Council, Accident Facts, 1982 Edition. Findings Concerning Pretrial Release," Pretrial Issues. National Safety Council, 444 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Pretrial Services Resource Center, Washington, DC. IL 60611. Quinn, T.l, 1984. "Focus for the future: Accountability in National S:leriffs' Association, n.d. County Law Enforcement: Sentencing," Federal Probation, Vol. 48, No.1, P? 10-18. An Assessment of Capabilities and Needs. 275 pp. Available Reis, R.E., 1983. "The Findings of the Comprehensive Driving from National Sheriffs' Association, 1450 Duke Street, Under the Influence of Alcohol Offender Treatment Demon­ Alexandria, VA 22314. stration Project," Abstracts and Reviews in Alcohol and ___, 1981 Guidelines for Planning a Detention Facility, 17 Driving, Vol. 4, No.1. pp. Available from National Sheriffs' Association, 1450 Duke Robertson, L., Rich, R., and Ross, H ., 1973. "Jail Se\Jtences Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. for Driving While Intoxicated in Chicago: A Judicial Policy ___, 1933. Illmates Legal Rights, Revised Edition, 67 pp. That Failed," Law and Society Review, Vol. 8, pp. 55-67. Available from National Sheriffs' Association, 1450 Duke Robertson, L.S., 1977. "Evaluation of Community Programs." Street, A.lexandria, VA 22314. In Johnson, I.R., ed., Proceedings of the Seventh Interna­ Nederhoff, D.A., 1984. "Jail Architecture: Planning and Design tional Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Concepts for Current and Future Needs," The National Melbourne, Australia. Australian Government Publishing

52 Service, Canberra, ]979, pp. 373-378. DOT-HS-802-525. Available from U.S. Government Printing Roizen, J., 1982. "Estimating Alcohol Involvement in Serious Office, Washington, DC 20402. Events." In NIAAA Alcohol and Health Monograph No.1, Toborg, M.A., 1981. "Pretrial Release: A National Evaluation pp. 179-219. Available from U.S. Government Printing of Practices and Outcomes." National Institute of Justice. Office, Washington, DC 20402. Available from U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash­ Rosenblum, R., and Whitcomb, D., 1978. Montgomery County ington, DC 20402. Work Release/Pre-release Program. Montgomery County, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, 1983. Maryland, 202 pp. U.S. Government Printing Office, "Liability in Community Corrections Programs." Available Washington, DC 20402. from NIC Infurmation Center, 1790 - 30th Street, Boulder, Ross, H.L., 1984. Deterring the Drinking Driver: Legal Policy CO 80301. and Social Control, 129 pp. Lexington Books, D.C. Heath Voas, R.B. 1982a. Effectiveness and Efficiency of Traffic Safety and Co., Lexington, MA 02173. Programs in Alcohol Safety. National Highway Traffic Safety Sadler, D., and Perrine, M.W., 1984. The Long-Term Traffic Administration, Report No. DOT-HS-806-141, 86 pp. Avail­ Safety Impact of a Pilot Alcohol Abuse Treatment as an able from National Technical Information Center, Springfield, ALternative to Licenses Suspension, Vol. 2, Evaluation of the VA 22161. California Drunk Driving Countermeasure System. California ___, 1982b. Drinking alld Driving: Scandinavian Laws, Department of Motor Vehicles, Report No. CAL-DMV­ Tough penalties and United States Alternatives. NHTSA RSS-84-90, 139 pp. Report No. DOT-HS-806-240. Available from National Sapp, A.D., 1984. "Administrative Responses to Prison Technical Information Center, Springfield VA 22161. Overcrowding: A Survey of Prison Administrators." Un­ Voas, R.B., and Moulden, 1, 1981. "Historical Trends in published paper. Available from the American Correctional Alcohol Use and Driving by Young Americans." In Association, 4321 Hartwick Road, L-208, College Park, MD Wechsler, ed., Minimum Drinking-Age Laws, Lexington 20740. Books, D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington, MA, pp. 59-72. Seiter, R.P., Carlson, E.W., Bowman, H.H., Grandfield, J.J., Vonier, T., 1984. "Slammers," Progressive Architecture, Vol. Beran, N.l, and Allen, H.E., 1977. Halfway Houses: 3, pp. 93-99. National Evaluation Program, Phase I: Summary Report. Whitford, D., ]983. "The Skid Law Merry-Go-Round: Why National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Are the Nation's Jails Still Clogged With Drunks." Report, Series A, Number 11. Available from U.S. Corrections Magazine, Vol. 9, No.2, April 1983. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Williams, lL., Olshan, M.D., Roth, N.L., and Wechsler, M., Siegal, H.A., 1982. "An Evaluation of the Intervention 1983. DWI Sanctions: The Law and Practice, 240 pp. Macro Approach to Drunk Driver Rehabilitation." Unpublished Systems, Inc., 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 300, Silver Spring, paper. Available from author, School of Medicine, Wright MD 20910. State University, Dayton, OH 45401. Young, M.A., and Stein, IH., 1983. The Victim Services Tllrrants, W.E., and Veigel, C.H., 1977. The Evaluation of System: A Guide to Action. National Orgam;>:ation for Victim Highway Traffic Safety Programs, Manual for Managers, 163 Assistance. Available from NOVA, 1757 Park Road, NW, pp. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report Washington DC 20010.

~U.S.COV(RNmLNT PRINTING orrICE:1967-170-9A1

53

------~- DOT HS 806 761 January 1986