DWI Repeat Offenders in the Criminal Justice System

1. DWI Repeat Offenders in the Criminal Justice System National Trends and Policy Options for New Hampshire April 26, 2010 Presented By: Elisabeth Ericson Brian Freeman Alicia Modeen

2. I. Preliminary Notes About our Presentation • Paper and presentation organization • Follows the multiple offender through the adjudication process • Goals of the project • Review of recent peer-reviewed literature • Analysis of national trends based on primary research • Recommendations for New Hampshire • Recidivism data complications • After a thorough search, data are still unavailable • Questions about its validity as a measure of sentence effectiveness • Offender assumptions

3. In This Presentation… Preliminary Notes About our Project Screening and Assessment in the DWI Adjudication Process Post-Sentencing Actions Case Studies Conclusions and Recommendations Questions & Comments

4. II. Screening & Assessment: Definitions • Screening • Traditionally the first rehabilitative component of DWI adjudication process • Intended to identify which offenders require further treatment for a substance abuse disorder and which do not • Brief, single event can generally be administered by lightly trained non-mental health professional

5. II. Screening & Assessment: Definitions • Assessment • Typically follows from screening if deemed necessary • Determines the severity of the problem, the offender’s readiness for treatment, and the type and length of treatment required • Often contains multiple components that must be administered and interpreted by a mental health professional

6. II. Screening & Assessment: Recent Trends • Fusion of screening and assessment to create a one-step evaluation process. • Problematic for repeat offenders • Inclusion of informal measures at the expense of screening/assessment-derived information. • Measures include criminal record, BAC, and history of treatment • Utilization of screening instruments as benchmarks to measure treatment progress. • Potential to overburden caseworkers with paperwork requirements

7. II. Screening & Assessment: New Hampshire’s Procedures • Second offenders automatically sentenced to 3 days in jail plus 7 days in an inpatient education program. • In-depth assessment of each offender performed at the end of the inpatient program. • As of 2010, NH facilities using 2 different assessment instruments: • Driver Risk Inventory II (DRI-II) and Research Institute on Addition’s Self-Inventory (RIASI) • One of only 9 states without pre-sentencing screening and/or assessment

8. Figure 1: Timing and Role of Screening in State DWI Laws NH NH

9. III. Post-sentencing actions: Overview Three dimensions of sentencing • Punitive • Purposes: retribution, deterrence, defray sentencing costs, and get criminals off the street • Methods: incarceration and fines • Preventive • Purposes: restrict behavior to reduce recidivism • Methods: license suspension or revocation and alcohol ignition interlock device • Rehabilitative • Purposes: address underlying substance abuse to reduce recidivism • Methods: education and/or treatment

10. III. Post-sentencing actions: Punitive • Incarceration • 49 states and D.C. mandate jail time for second offenders • Median minimum sentence is 7 days • Fines • 42 states and D.C. impose minimum fines • Median fine for second offenders is $500 • No Strong relationship between minimum jail sentence and minimum fine • New Hampshire is at 62nd percentile for jail time, 32nd for fines

11. III. Post-sentencing actions: Punitive Research and evidence • Punishment is less effective than education, treatment (Taxman 1998) • No statistically significant effects of mandatory jail time, possible small effect of mandatory fines (Wagenaar et al. 2007) • When controlling for alcohol problems, punitive sanctions did not reduce chances of recidivism (Yu 2000) • However: Punishment combined with treatment may be more effective than treatment alone (Arria et al. 2005)

12. Licensing sanctions Used in every state, with sentences from four to 60 months “Swift and sure,” easy to implement Less effective for hardcore drunk drivers Alcohol ignition interlock device More expensive but highly effective Difficult to circumvent (requires obtaining another vehicle) Prevents only impaired driving, allows driving when sober II. Post-sentencing actions: Preventive NH NH Number of States NH

13. III. Post-sentencing actions: Preventive Research and evidence • “The overwhelming evidence … suggests that licensing sanctions generally fail to deter habitual offenders from continuing to drink and drive.” (Freeman 2006) • Repeat offenders are more likely to violate license suspension and more likely to be drunk while doing so (NHDDP 2009) • In a sample of repeat offenders, 74 percent admitted to driving while unlicensed; needing to obtain and keep employment was the most frequently cited reason (Lenton et al. 2010) • In Sweden, a two-year alcohol ignition interlock program considerably improved recidivism and accident rates compared to license suspension (Bjerre and Thorsson 2008) • Other program components: mandatory physician examination every three months, blood and urine testing for alcohol

14. III. Post-sentencing actions: Rehabilitative • Education • Most effective for “non-addicted multiple offender” (NHDDP 2009) • …but most multiple offenders are addicted (Lapham et al. 2006) • Can be part of treatment, but no substitute for it • Treatment • May be inpatient or outpatient • Should combine strategies, e.g. individual and group counseling, education, follow-up • NHDDP (2009) recommends at least three months’ counseling, but meaningful behavioral change may require nine to 12 months NH NH

15. III. Post-sentencing actions: Rehabilitative Research and evidence • High prevalence of substance abuse and other psychiatric disorders (dual diagnosis) in repeat offenders (Lapham et al. 2006) • Psychiatric disorders remain undiagnosed at high rates during treatment of multiple offenders (McMillan et al. 2008) • Better screening and inclusion of psychiatric treatment into substance abuse treatment could improve outcomes

16. IV. Case Studies • Five case studies • Three “good” models (NY, CA, CT) • Recommended by experts • Two neighboring states (VT, ME) • For comparison

17. IV. Case Studies: Overview

18. IV. Case Studies: New York • Policy • Mandatory screening and assessment upon arraignment • Assessment determines treatment component of sentence • Upon completion of treatment, can petition for license restoration • Analysis • Ensures appropriate treatment sentence for every individual • Incentive to complete treatment

19. IV. Case Studies: California • Policy • 18-month outpatient education and group counseling program • 12 hours of substance abuse education • 52 hours of weekly group counseling • After completion of first 12 months, can receive restricted license (with interlock) • Last 6 months, monthly group sessions and weekly community re-entry activity • Analysis • Simple to implement (standard program) • Long-term (more effective) • Intermediate incentive

20. IV. Case Studies: Connecticut • Policy • Substance abuse treatment program of nine months or more • Four nonprofit providers • Four phases: • Evaluation • Weekend inpatient “retreat” • Outpatient aftercare • Follow-up and monitoring • Recommend license reinstatement after phase 3 or 4 • Analysis • Choice of providers allows flexibility • Combination of intensive inpatient and long-term outpatient

21. IV. Case Studies: Vermont • Policy • Education program (Project CRASH) • Weekend inpatient or 10-hour outpatient • All second offenders assigned treatment programs • Must complete before license reinstatement • Analysis • Ensures that all multiple offenders receive treatment • Makes treatment mandatory for license reinstatement

22. IV. Case Studies: Maine • Policy • 20-hour risk reduction education program (PRIME for life) • Includes screening instrument • If screening suggests alcohol problem, referred to 2-4 session clinical substance abuse evaluation • If counselor prescribes treatment, must complete before license restoration • Can ask for a second opinion • Can opt to enter treatment immediately (skip education) • Analysis • Second opinion minimizes subjectivity in treatment prescription • Option to move directly into treatment

23. V. Recommendations: Screening & Assessment Consider other instrument options based on demonstrated reliability Standardize screening/assessment instruments statewide Implement pre-sentencing screening as an early intervention technique Limit administrative work resulting from screening tools used as progress markers throughout treatment Support research to better understand efficacy of available instruments

24. V. Recommendations: Post-sentencing actions Punitive, preventive, and rehabilitative approaches should be combined for greatest impact Degree of punitive action is less important Alcohol ignition interlock devices are more effective than license suspensions for chronic offenders Education is not effective unless combined with long-term treatment Treatment should include long-term outpatient counseling, accountability, and follow-up Attention to mental illness beyond addiction may improve outcomes

25. V. Recommendations: Case Studies Make treatment mandatory for multiple offenders. Make education optional for offenders who admit to a drinking problem. Offer hardship licenses with ignition interlock. Allow early license restoration upon completion of treatment. Allow offenders to seek a second opinion on treatment prescription. Optional: prescribe a standard long-term treatment program instead of a tailored treatment plan.