1 / 18

Assessment and Treatment of DWI Offenders in Maryland 1995-2003 : Current Findings

This report presents findings from a study conducted between 1995-2003, assessing DWI offenders in Maryland. It investigates the effectiveness of treatment for DWI offenders and highlights variability in the assessment process.

bsams
Download Presentation

Assessment and Treatment of DWI Offenders in Maryland 1995-2003 : Current Findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessment and Treatment of DWI Offenders in Maryland 1995-2003: Current Findings Prepared by: Amelia M. Arria, Ph.D. Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR) University of Maryland aarria@cesar.umd.edu; 301-405-9795 Submitted to: Peter F. Luongo, Ph.D. Director, Maryland Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration Acknowledgements: Kevin O’Grady, Ph.D. , Peter Smith, B.S., Nadine Connell, M.A., William T. Rusinko, M.A., Vickie Kaneko, Michael Wagner, Ph.D., and Eric D. Wish, Ph.D. This project was funded by grant #50499 to CESAR from the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

  2. Maryland Statistics • Total Fatalities per 100,000 Drivers (% alcohol-related) Average U.S.: 14.7 (40% alcohol-related) Maryland: 18.3 (43% alcohol-related) • Total Persons Killed in Alcohol-related Crashes Total U.S: 17,013 people Maryland: 281 (roughly 5 people/week) August 11, 2005

  3. Background • Assessment of DWI offenders in Maryland is not well characterized. • Anecdotally it was thought that many DWI offenders, even if assessed as “problem drinkers” and ordered to treatment, do not show up to receive treatment services in Maryland. • Little is known of the treatment experiences of DWI offenders in Maryland. • This study was a first step in examining the effectiveness of treatment for DWI offenders. • From earlier studies in Maryland, we know that substance abuse treatment completion is associated with increased employment and reduced arrest. August 11, 2005

  4. DWI arrest ? ? Problem Drinker Enters Treatment Re-assessed DWI assessment ? Does Not Enter Treatment Is not Re-assessed Social Drinker What questions did this study try to answer? Note on data linking procedures: DWI assessment data was obtained from ADAA for individuals assessed during the period of 1995-2003. Only individuals who had one assessment for their offense were included. DWI data was merged with the ADAA database on individuals receiving substance abuse treatment in Maryland from a certified program. August 11, 2005

  5. What do we mean by re-assessment? • In this study, we use • assessment as a proxy • for arrest and re-arrest for • a DWI offense. • We do not know the exact • percentage of DWI offenders • who receive an assessment, • an estimate is 60-70%. • Our measure of re-assessment • misses some people who were • re-arrested for DWI but not • re-assessed. All DWI arrests DWI Assessments August 11, 2005

  6. First Stage Results: Problem Determination and Treatment Entry n = 50,859 65% Problem Drinker DWI assessment 1995-2003 Social Drinker n = 77,845 n = 26,986 35% August 11, 2005

  7. How much variability exists in the assessmentprocess of DWI arrestees in Maryland? • From interviews conducted with 161 assessment centers, the method for making a “problem drinker” determination varied widely: less than 10% of centers used standardized diagnostic criteria; 40% used the Addiction Severity Index 75% used the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST), a brief assessment tool to assess alcoholism 47% used two of these assessment methods • The average length of time estimated to conduct an assessment varied from 15 minutes to over 90 minutes. August 11, 2005

  8. County-level variation in assessing individuals as “Problem Drinkers” 88% 49% August 11, 2005

  9. Social Drinkers, 29% Problem Drinkers, 71% Difference between Public and Private Assessment Centers on the proportion of DWI arrestees assessed as “Problem Drinkers” Public Assessment August 11, 2005

  10. Problem Drinker Determination and Income Level Individuals with lower incomes are significantly more likely to be assessed as Problem Drinkers than individuals with higher incomes August 11, 2005

  11. Problem Drinker Determination and BAC Level Problem Drinkers are significantly more likely to have BAC levels above 0.14 than Social Drinkers, and the average BAC is 0.15 and 0.12, respectively. August 11, 2005

  12. Problem Determination and Treatment Entry n = 50,859 65% Enters Treatment 50% Problem Drinker 13% DWI assessment 1995-2003 Social Drinker 50% n = 77,845 n = 26,986 35% 87% Does Not Enter Treatment August 11, 2005

  13. County-level variation in the proportion of Problem Drinkers entering treatment 78% 38% August 11, 2005

  14. Second Stage Results: re-assessment DWI assessment records from 1995-1999 N = 43,589 “Problem Drinkers” Social Drinkers n = 29,019 65.8% n = 14,570 34.2% Entered Treatment 10.2% re-assessed n = 13,072 46.7% n = 1595 10.9% 7.1% re-assessed Did not Enter Treatment 10.2% re-assessed 17.8% re-assessed n = 15,947 56.9% n = 12,975 89.1% August 11, 2005

  15. Impact of Treatment on Re-assessment1 1re-assessment is measured by a repeat appearance in the assessment database, and is very likely an underestimation of true repeat offending since not all offenders receive assessments. August 11, 2005

  16. SUMMARY: Findings that have Potential Policy Implications • Assessment Process for DWI offenders is not highly standardized. • Problem Drinker Determination varies by county, income level and assessment center funding status. • Over half of problem drinkers do not enter treatment and the proportion of individuals entering treatment varies by county. • Treatment completion was significantly associated with a reduced likelihood of re-assessment. • Administrative data is useful in creating ongoing, sustainable outcomes monitoring systems. August 11, 2005

  17. Recommendations for System Change • Standardize assessment process to include diagnostic instruments • Streamline assessment process to eliminate the time gap between • assessment and treatment • Eliminate the distinction between problem and social drinkers – • rather, base the need for treatment on a comprehensive substance • abuse assessment and match individuals to appropriate levels of • treatment • Put into place tighter monitoring systems for the assessment and • treatment entry process to ensure timely entry into services August 11, 2005

  18. Recommendations for Future Studies • Compare problem and social drinkers who were re-assessed on • what problem determination was given the second time. • Investigate reasons for county-level differences in problem determination and • treatment entry for DWI offenders. • Understand more about the characteristics of assessment centers, and • the process they use to make problem determinations. • Estimate the likelihood of treatment for individuals who are re-assessed • multiple times. • Obtain arrest records to more clearly understand re-arrest rather than • only re-assessment. August 11, 2005

More Related