Predictors of Completion of a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Court for Repeat Offenders

• Author: Christine A. Saum,Bridget A. Nolan,Matthew L. Hiller
• Date: 01 June 2013
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016813476514
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Predictors of Completion of a

Driving Under the Influence

(DUI) Court for Repeat

Offenders

Christine A. Saum

1

, Matthew L. Hiller

2

, and

Bridget A. Nolan

2

Abstract

Driving underthe influence (DUI) courtsare a somewhat recent adaptationof the widely popular drug

courts.

1

As such there is a need for more researchon these specialty courts thattarget DUI offenders.

An important areaof research is program completionand determining what factorsmay be related to

participantdropout. The currentstudy presentsfindings on a 3-year admissionscohort of participantsin

the WaukeshaAlcohol TreatmentCourt (WATC) forthird-time DUI offenders.This programhas been

in operation for over 6 years and is a court-based intervention program specifically designed by local

stakeholdersto addressthe serious DUI problemin Waukesha County,Wisconsin. Resultsindicate that

variables related to pretrial andcase processing, includinghaving participated in substance abuse treat-

ment prior to DUI court entry, were related to WATC completion status. Patterns emerged for the

sociodemographic and substance use and health variables, although these relationships did not reach

statistical significance. DUI court planners can utilize this information when applying The Ten Guiding

Principlesof DWI Courts to their courts suchas identifying subsets of DUIoffenders and refining program

components to improve participant completion and subsequentsuccessful outcomes.

Keywords

court innovations, courts/law, drugs and crime, other, substance abuse

Introduction

Driving under the influence (DUI) courts, specialty courts that target individuals who drive while

under the influence of alcohol and other substances, are among the newest of the growing variety

of problem-solving courts that are based on the drug court model. Under this model, judges oversee

participants as they meet program requirements that include attending treatment and court status

1

Department of Law and Justice Studies, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA

2

Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christine A. Saum, Department of Law and Justice Studies, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Rd., Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA.

Email: saum@rowan.edu

Criminal Justice Review

38(2) 207-225

ª2013 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016813476514

cjr.sagepub.com

hearings, offering rewards for progress and sanctions for noncompliant behavior. Thus, drug courts

provide a unique approach by combining long-term substance abuse treatment and criminal justice

supervision, both of which have been shown to have separate and positive effects for increasing

retention of drug-involved offenders in treatment and reducing recidivism and drug use among these

individuals (Hiller, Knight, Broome, & Simpson, 1998; Leukefeld, Tims, & Farabee, 2002; Nurco,

Hanlon, Bateman, & Kinlock, 1995). Drug courts have enjoyed widespread popularity across the

political spectrum and have become, in many jurisdictions, the treatment of choice for drug-

involved offenders (Belenko, 2002).

As of 2011, there were 2,663 drug courts, including 174 designated DUI courts and 395 hybrid

courts (admits both drug and DUI offenders) operating in the United States (National Association of

Drug Court Professionals, 2012; National Center for DWI Courts, 2012). Although different types of

specialty and problem-solving courts (i.e., mental health courts, domestic violence courts) share

similar features and have the ultimate goal of promoting beneficial outcomes for the offenders and

larger society, the distinctive feature of DUI court is to focus on holding DUI offenders accountable

for their actions and to protect the community by preventing the future occurrence of DUI offenses.

Indeed, when we examine the national picture of DUI, there is a clear evidence that individuals

who drive while under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs represent a significant and persistent

threat to the safety and health of the nation as a whole, of each state, and of local communities. Data

from the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicate that alco-

hol was involved in 7%(or about 450,000) of the accidents nationwide in 2005 (NHTSA, 2006). It is

estimated that 254,000 people were injured in alcohol-related accidents during this same time frame.

Although the number of fatalities in DUI-related accidents has steadily decreased since the early

1990s, the proportion of fatal accidents in which alcohol has been involved has remained stable,

indicating that DUI-related accidents are still a major public health problem. Data from 2007 show

that alcohol was involved in 37%of accidents in which a fatality occurred, resulting in a total of

15,387 deaths (Office of Applied Studies, 2008). Furthermore, almost 13,000 people who died were

in crashes involving a driver with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or higher. Moreover, drivers

with a BAC of .08 or higher involved in fatal crashes were 8 times more likely to have a prior con-

viction for driving while impaired (DWI) than were drivers with no alcohol in their system.

In 2008, a government study of adult drivers ranked the state of Wisconsin first of all 50 states for

having the highest rates of past year DUI (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Systems Adminis-

tration [SAMHSA], 2008). Researchers estimated that over one fourth (26.4%) of adult drivers in the

state drove while under the influence, compared with the national average of 15%. Not surprisingly,

a national report indicates that Wisconsin ranks in the top one third of states for having the highest

proportion of alcohol-related fatal crashes (NHTSA, 2007). In fact, analyzing trends from 2000 until

2007, alcohol was implicated in fatal accidents in Wisconsin at rates that consistently exceeded the

national rate for alcohol-related fatal accidents. Moreover, data from the NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis

Reporting System (FARS) indicate that there were a total of 756 fatalities in accidents in 2007 in

Wisconsin and alcohol was a contributing factor in 48%of these accidents (NHTSA, 2007).

To help address these high rates of DUI and DUI-related problems, a team of local stakeholders in

Waukesha County, Wisconsin created a DUI court. The Waukesha Alcohol Treatment Court

(WATC) was developed with implementation money from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

and has been in operation for over 6 years. The program focuses on third-time DUI offenders and

formally began admitting participants in May 2006.

A process and outcome evaluation of the WATC was completed in the spring of 2009 (see

Hiller et al., 2009). At that time, one third of the DUI court participants had not yet been dis-

charged from the program. Here, we present an update on findings relating to completion of the

WATC. It is hoped that by identifying characteristics of those who fail to complete the program,

improvements can be made with regard to targeting participants that will most likely benefit from

208 Criminal Justice Review 38(2)