A Drunk Driving Systems Approach

1. A Drunk Driving Systems Approach Robyn Robertson, M.C.A. Traffic Injury Research Foundation Michigan Traffic Safety Summit Lansing, MI March 14th, 2007 A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

2. Overview • History of research initiative. • Priority problems and solutions in Michigan. • Applications of the system improvements approach: • a strategic review of the DWI system • using supervision technologies – interlocks/SCRAM A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

3. History • Hard core repeat offenders account for a substantial part of the alcohol-crash problem. • Agencies have uniformly shifted their focus to these persistent offenders. • Efforts are needed to close loopholes that allow offenders to evade apprehension, prosecution, sanctioning – there is evidence that the justice system is not achieving its goals. • Continued progress will depend on our ability to address this problem. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

4. Project background • TIRF conducted a 3-year comprehensive review of the criminal DWI system under funding from Anheuser Busch Companies. • The goal was to identify priority problems and practical solutions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal DWI system. • Unique project approach involving several thousand front-line professionals. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

5. Acceptance • American Judges Association • American Probation and Parole Association • American Prosecutors Research Institute • Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals • California District Attorneys Association • Center for Substance Abuse Treatment • Conference of State Court Administrators • Council of State Governments • Governors Highway Safety Association • International Association of Chiefs of Police • Institute of Police Technology and Management • Journal of Offender Monitoring • National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators • National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

6. Acceptance • National Association of State Judicial Educators • National Criminal Justice Association • National Center for State Courts • National Conference of State Legislatures • National District Attorneys Association • National Employers for Traffic Safety • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism • National Institute of Corrections • National Institute of Justice • National Transportation Safety Board • National Judicial College • National Traffic Law Center • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration • Washington Traffic Safety Commission A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

7. Enforcement:problem list • Paperwork • Test refusal • Detection • Incomplete evidence • Medical cooperation • Failure-to-appear • Records • Testimony • Resources A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

8. Enforcement:problem list • Paperwork • Test refusal • Detection • Incomplete evidence • Medical cooperation • Failure to appear • Records • Testimony • Resources A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

9. Paperwork: problem • Paperwork associated with DWI arrests, especially those involving repeat offenders, is voluminous. • Nationwide, officers may complete as many as 16 different forms, containing repetitive information. • Officers require an average of 2-3 hours to complete an arrest. • While progress has been made, paperwork requirements are still substantial. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

10. Paperwork: solution • Reduce it: standardize and streamline paperwork. • Technology: to reduce processing time and errors. • computerize forms, with branching systems and linkages to other forms. • electronic roadside equipment such as mag-stripe readers to make form completion faster and more accurate. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

11. Testimony: problem • Police officers testify infrequently in DWI cases – 78% of officers report that they rarely or occasionally testify. • Officers are most likely to testify in cases involving repeat offenders where accuracy and detail are extremely important. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

12. Testimony: solution • Preparation: by prosecutors in how to effectively testify in court. • Mock trials: to simulate presentation of evidence and cross-examination. • Mentoring: working with experienced officers and using direct observation. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

13. Prosecution:problem list Nationwide Michigan • Evidentiary issues • Test refusal • Motions & continuances • Records • Inadequate penalties • Failure-to-appear • Legislative complexities • Expert witnesses • Plea agreements • Prosecutor training • Evidentiary issues • Expert witnesses • Inadequate penalties • Test refusal • Records • Motions & continuances • Legislative complexities • Failure to appear • Plea agreements • Prosecutor training A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

14. Prosecution: problem list • Evidentiary issues • Test refusal • Motions and continuances • Records • Inadequate or inconsistent penalties • Failure to appear • Legislative complexities • Expert witnesses • Plea agreements • Prosecutor training A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

15. Evidentiary issues: problem • Collection of evidence: • Complex investigation and arrest procedures create opportunities for errors. • Lack of standardization in police training and DWI testing procedures produces inconsistency. • Documentation of evidence: • Numerous and detailed forms provide opportunities for error. • Lack of standardization of breath testing equipment. • Storage and chain of custody issues. • Admissibility of prior convictions. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

16. Evidentiary issues: solution • Training: improved and standardized police training and DWI testing procedures. • Cooperation: improved police/prosecutor cooperation. • Recognition: improved police motivation -- recognition of officers doing a good/consistent job. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

17. Motions and continuances: problem • Motions are written applications to the court to obtain a favorable decision or ruling. • Motions, including those for continuances, can be overused or used in a “frivolous” manner to delay proceedings and “bury” prosecutors in paperwork. • Prosecutors have difficulty responding to some motions due to problems accessing legal research and reference materials. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

18. Motions and continuances: solution • Access: • consistent, computerized access to Westlaw and related legal websites. • greater access to legal research materials and court rulings. • Case processing:stricter adherence to guidelines to ensure the case is processed in a reasonable timeframe. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

19. Adjudication: problem list Nationwide Michigan • Sentence monitoring • Evidentiary issues • Caseload • Motions & continuances • Failure to appear • Records • Sentencing disparity • Mandatory minimum sentences • Juries • Sentence monitoring • Caseload • Failure to appear • Evidentiary issues • Motions & continuances • Juries • Records • Sentencing disparity • Mandatory minimum sentences A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

20. Adjudication: problem list • Sentence monitoring • Evidentiary issues • Caseload • Motions and continuances • Failure to appear • Records • Sentencing disparity • Mandatory minimum sentences • Juries A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

21. Sentence monitoring: problem • Commonly assumed that offenders comply with imposed sentences. • Offenders frequently fail to comply, either in whole or in part. • Judges in Michigan estimate that 29% of offenders are returned to court for failing to comply with dispositions - comparable to the national average. • Petitions to revoke probation are rarely filed in some states. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

22. Sentence monitoring: problem • Courts have limited resources to monitor offender compliance – almost 2/3 of Michigan judges report resources are insufficient. • Lack of communication was identified by 50% of Michigan judges as the most significant factor impeding the effective monitoring of offenders. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

23. Sentence monitoring: solution • Streamline reporting: simplify reports to facilitate judicial review and ensure statutory limitations on revocation orders are met. • Centralize reporting: through probation and parole officers – 83% of Michigan judges support this recommendation. • Contact and communication: greater integration between courts, probation, treatment, and offenders would improve compliance – 95% agree, compared to 74% nationally. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

24. Adjudication: problem list • Sentence monitoring • Evidentiary issues • Caseload • Motions and continuances • Failure to appear • Records • Sentencing disparity • Mandatory minimum sentences • J A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

25. Caseload: problem • With 1.4 million arrests annually, DWI offenses are the most frequently adjudicated misdemeanor in the lower courts. • Caseloads are substantial -- in Minnesota almost 40% of the criminal calendar is DWI related. • Repeat offenders are more likely to plead not guilty and go to trial – 56% of Michigan judges agree. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

26. Caseload: solution • More judges: judges support more hiring to reduce caseloads and improve sentencing decisions – 26% of Michigan judges agree. • Specialized courts: result in swifter resolutions, reduce backlogs and improve outcomes – 58% of Michigan judges agree (compared to 50% nationally). • Mandatory alcohol assessments: the timely production of these will allow judges to evaluate plea agreements and expedite sentencing – 95% of Michigan judges agree. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

27. Monitoring:problem list Nationwide Michigan • Non-compliance with court orders • Caseload • Conflicting goals • Sentencing disparity • Program design • Paperwork • Net-widening • Records • Caseload • Non-compliance with court orders • Program design • Conflicting goals • Paperwork • Sentencing disparity • Records • Net-widening A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

28. Probation/parole:problem • Non-compliance with court orders • Caseload • Conflicting goals • Sentencing disparity • Program administration • Paperwork • Net-widening • Records A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

29. Non-compliance: problem Hard core repeat offenders simply do not comply with court-ordered sanctions: • Do not have ignition interlocks installed. • Do not show up for treatment. • Do not pay fines and fees. • Do not abstain from alcohol or drugs. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

30. Non-compliance: problem • Offenders frequently fail to comply to varying extents; non-compliance is not consistently detected. • Officers nationwide estimate that 44% of offenders fail to comply with the terms and conditions of sentence. • Offenders least compliant with license sanctions (36%); treatment (28%). A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

31. Non-compliance: solution • Better communication: between probation and treatment agencies – 88% agree. • Contact & testing: more client contact, with random testing - 44% of officers support. • Technical assistance: greater use of new technologies. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

32. Probation/parole:problem • Non-compliance with court orders • Caseload • Conflicting goals • Sentencing disparity • Program administration • Paperwork • Net-widening • Records A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

33. Program administration: problem • Over 65% of officers report that program requirements or design contribute to non-compliance, occasionally or often. • Offenders circumvent screening mechanisms. • Conditions cannot be complied with. • Programs administered inconsistently. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

34. Program administration: solution • Indigent offender funds: a priority need. • Realistic program requirements: to facilitate entry and improve the likelihood of compliance. • Program matching: to make better use of resources and increase success rates. • Certification and standards: for service providers. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

35. Systems approach • System parts are interdependent. • Collectively examining the findings from the series of reports, it is evident that many of the same problems impact the system at all levels: • caseload • evidence • test refusal • records • failure to appear • legislation • Fixing a problem can have beneficial reverberations throughout the entire system. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

36. What is needed? • Enhanced training and education. • Improved communication and cooperation among professionals. • Improved records: timeliness, linkages, and access. • Greater use of technology. • Legislation and regulation. • More resources. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

37. Summary report • Summary report contains 64 recommendations for improving the DWI system: • Communication and cooperation • Training and education • Technology • Records • Legislation • Resources • Leadership from key agencies (AJA, APPA, NTLC, IACP) stimulated involvement of others, resulting in a consensual roadmap for change. • Report facilitated the formation of the Working Group on DWI System Improvements. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

38. Working Group • Our Working Group on DWI System Improvements has become an effective coalition that is advancing the priority recommendations. • 14 agencies are involved. • Inclusive process; some agencies have never been seen as part of the process. • Our initiative is breaking down barriers, improving communication and cooperation. • This Working Group has the credibility, profile and expertise to facilitate the implementation of priority recommendations. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

39. Working Group • The Working Group held its inaugural meeting in 2004. • Milestone in the history of DWI. • A major outcome was the development of guiding principles to make the recommendations more practical and feasible. • In 2005 the meeting provided concrete illustrations of progress. • In 2006 meeting focused on a strategic review of the DWI system and interlock programs. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

40. DWI system strategic review • Some states have already undertaken a strategic review. • The process has varied across states. • Outcomes have been mixed. • Research can guide the review process. • An emphasis should be on making the system work better. • A review can be undertaken at a state, county, or local level. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

41. DWI system strategic review • Step 1: select a review strategy and build a team • identify a strategy for conducting a review • establish a review team of qualified stakeholders • limit the size of the team • use a two-tiered process to create buy-in A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

42. DWI system strategic review • Step 2: identify purpose, goals, and objectives • establish and prioritize short-term and long-term objectives • assign responsibilities to team members • promote communication and cooperation among members/agencies • avoid partisanship A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

43. DWI system strategic review • Step 3: establish guiding principles • achievable • context • comprehensive • compromise • constructive • culturally and socio-economically sensitive • evidence-based • inclusive • measurable • responsive • system-centered A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

44. DWI system strategic review • Step 4: assess the system • interview key players in the system – conduct agency assessments to gather input from front-line professionals • gather hard data • locate source of problems • Step 5: evaluate potential solutions • evaluate solutions for problems using clear criteria • avoid unintended negative consequences • emphasize assessment and treatment A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

45. DWI system strategic review • Step 6: select a viable strategy • achieve consensus on most effective strategies • integrate system components and facilitate communication • Step 7: create consensus • remain focused on goals • encourage cooperation and compromise • develop support for changes among stakeholders A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

46. DWI system strategic review • Step 8: develop recommendations and support delivery with a well-communicated strategy • Step 9: set responsibilities and timelines as part of an implementation plan • Step 10: measure outcomes and establish an ongoing review; share successes A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

47. DWI system strategic review • Caveats to the review process: • scanning the system • avoiding unintended negative consequences • feedback • special populations • assessment and treatment • public education • a “model” system • sharing successes A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

48. Summary • The review process can bring agencies together to discuss common problems and foster communication and cooperation among agencies. • A review team can be an effective vehicle to leverage consensus and create effective change to improve the system. • A review can ensure agencies are making the best use of limited resources. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

49. Technology: a systems approach • An interlock is a breath-testing device attached to a car starter. • It prevents ignition when a pre-set level of alcohol is detected in the breath sample provided by, presumably, the driver. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

50. BAC = 0 Ignition Warn BAC <= 0.02 Running Retest BAC > 0.02 Interlock How does it work? A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY