ILLINOIS DUI PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT 2016 DRIVER RISK INVENTORY-II BEHAVIOR DATA SYSTEMS, LTD. P.O. BOX PHOENIX, AZ

Transcription

1 ILLINOIS DUI PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT 2016 DRIVER RISK INVENTORY-2 DRIVER RISK INVENTORY-II BEHAVIOR DATA SYSTEMS, LTD. P.O. BOX PHOENIX, AZ

2 SUMMARY This report summarizes Illinois State DUI Program test data for 4,976 offenders who completed the Driver Risk Inventory 2 (N=4,467), and the Driver Risk Inventory II (N=509). Test administrations for the DRI-2 have decreased 9% since last reporting period; administrations have decreased 87% for the DRI-II since last reporting period. All data received from August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2016 was analyzed for this report. The Driver Risk Inventory 2 (DRI-2), and the Driver Risk Inventory II (DRI-II) are DUI offender assessments. The DRI-2 started to replace the DRI-II in 2013, as it is an updated test that measures the DSM-V, rather than the outdated DSM-IV. The term missing data refers to responses of 0, N, or N/A when more descriptive or accurate values were available. Missing data can also mean that data was available but not provided. Reliability coefficients for each test are as follows: DRI-2: Truthfulness Scale,.89; Alcohol Scale,.94; Drug Scale,.92; Driver Risk,.83; and Stress Management Scale,.91. Reliability findings met or exceeded professionally accepted reliability standards. DRI-II: Truthfulness Scale,.89; Alcohol Scale,.92; Drug Scale,.92; Driver Risk,.87; and Stress Management Scale,.93. Reliability findings exceeded professionally accepted standards. Applying this Report to Everyday Client Interactions The information in this report may be useful in terms of future planning and specifying specific resources and treatment options. Results being analyzed are particularly helpful when the risk/needs principle is being utilized individuals who score higher on the risk categories receive more intensity treatment and intervention services. For example, mutual support group participation may be appropriate for individuals scoring in the Medium Risk range on the Alcohol Scale or Drug Scale, whereas intensive outpatient treatment programing may be appropriate for those scoring in the Severe Problem range. Offenders who score in the Moderate Risk or Severe Problem range on the Violence Scale may benefit from participation in anger management education and coping skills training (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). This principle can also apply to supervision decision-making by ensuring that offenders who demonstrate the greatest risk receive more supervision and oversight, whereas, those offenders who demonstrate less risk receive less supervision. Adopting the risk/need strategy facilitates appropriate distribution of resources and staff allocations. The above results, along with validity findings, demonstrate that the tests administered by the Illinois DUI Program effectively differentiate between offenders who are known to have more severe problems. Matching treatment and intervention intensity or legal action to problem severity reduces recidivism and time to relapse as well as, aids in supervision and release decision making. Amanda Benjamin Business Data Analyst 1 P age

3 DRI-2 DEMOGRAPHICS This section summarizes the demographic characteristics of 4,467 offenders who completed the DRI-2. Characteristics include age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education achieved. In addition, self-reported breath alcohol content, offender status, and criminal history data are also presented. OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS The average age was: for all offenders o 35.2 for male offenders o 35.0 for female offenders o 32.7 for first-time offenders o 39.8 for repeat offender The average age last reporting period was 35.1 for all offenders. Results are largely consistent. Gender is summarized below: 75.5% (3,371) were male 24.5% (1,096) were female For 2015, 76% were male and 24% were female. The current results are largely consistent with the last reporting period. Race and ethnicity is presented below: 61.3% (2,740) were Caucasian 15.4% (686) were African-American 18.6% (829) were Hispanic 3.0% (132) were Asian <1% (8) were Native American 1.5% (67) reported Other, but did not provide any additional information Information was missing for 5 offenders. Last year, the results were as follows: 57% Caucasian, 21% Hispanic, 16% African-American, 3% Asian, <1% Native American, and 2% Other. The current results are mostly consistent with the last reporting period. 2 P age

4 Below summarizes inmate Marital Status: 61.0% (2,725) were single 21.8% (972) were married 12.8% (573) were divorced 2.6% (118) were separated 1.0% (46) were widowed Information was missing for 33 offenders. The results from last reporting period were: 62% Single, 23% Married, 12% Divorced, 2% Separated, and 1% were Widowed. These results are extremely consistent with last year. Education Achieved is displayed below: 4.3% (190) completed less than 8 th grade 7.2% (320) partially completed high school 5.8% (260) obtained a GED 31.0% (1,387) graduated high school 3.7% (166) partially completed college 31.0% (1,384) attended technical/business school 13.6% (606) graduated college 3.2% (141) attended graduate school Information was missing for 13 offenders. The results from the last reporting period showed 6% completed less than 8 th grade, 3% partially completed high school, 26% obtained a GED or graduated high school, 1% partially completed college, 41% attended technical or business school, 17% graduated college, and 5% attended graduate school. The results are somewhat consistent with last years. 3 P age

5 Offenders Reason for DUI results are below: 87.7% (3,918) Alcohol <1% (31) Substance Abuse 6.8% (303) Marijuana 0% (1) Zero Tolerance 2.7% (119) Drugs 1.9% (84) Other Information was missing for 11 offenders. This information was not previously reported and therefore is not comparable. BREATH ALCOHOL CONTENT Current Breath Alcohol Content results were: 20.1% (899) had BAC % (895) had BAC % (876) had BAC % (416) had BAC % (173) had BAC <1% (4) had BAC.45+* 11.7% (524) selected Refused 15.2% (680) selected Not Available* This section was not reported last year, so there are no results to compare to. *Note that a Breath Alcohol Content of.4 or more normally indicates onset of coma and can even result in death. Scales were adjusted so that potentially meaningful outliers up to.44 would not be overlooked; any case in the.45 or higher level is likely a data entry error. *The count for Not Available includes offenders who selected Not Available, or left the answer blank. 4 P age

6 There were 3,259 BAC responses used to calculate the average BAC, BAC by gender, and BAC by offender status. All other cases refused to respond, left the question blank, or entered an invalid BAC when taking the test. The average BAC was:.118 for all offenders BAC by gender was:.115 for male offenders.128 for female offenders BAC by offender status was:.118 for first-time offenders.119 for repeat offenders T-test results for BAC by gender were statistically significant, but BAC by offender status were not, suggesting that gender, but not offender status, has an effect on reported BAC level. The BAC average for all offenders last year was.140. The total BAC average this year was much lower than last year. Gender and Offender status results were not reported. COURT HISTORY This section of the report summarizes court history responses provided by the offenders who took the DRI-2. Initially, individuals were categorized into first-time offenders and repeat offenders based on the number of lifetime DUIs they reported. First-time offenders were defined as offenders with up to one DUI arrest; repeat offenders were defined as individuals with two or more DUI arrests. Offender Status: 64.9% (2,900) were first-time offenders 35.0% (1,562) were repeat offenders Information was missing for 5 cases. Last year reported 67% of offenders to be first-time offenders and 33% to be repeat offenders. Results are consistent with the previous reporting periods results. The DRI-2 Court History Chart on the next page displays DRI-2 offenders court history. Four categories were created to organize offender responses; 0 arrests, 1 arrest, 2 arrests, and 3 or more arrests. If the columns do not sum up to be 4,467, it is due to the presence of missing data. 5 P age

7 As noted in the DRI-2 Court History Chart, of the offenders who provided responses, 94% of offenders had one or more DUIs, 27% had one or more alcohol-related arrests that were not DUI related, 22% had one more drug arrests (not DUI related), 34% had one or more at-fault accidents, and 81% had one or more traffic violations. Last year reported that 93% of offenders had one or more DUIs, 26% had one or more alcoholrelated arrests that were not DUI related, 22% had one more drug arrests (not DUI related), and 32% had one or more at-fault accidents. Traffic violations were not reported. Current results are largely consistent with what was reported last year. SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER DSM-V classification for Substance Use Disorder is distinguished by a series of DRI-2 items. 66.5% did not meet the criteria for substance use disorder 15.6% met criteria for mild risk substance use disorder problem 7.0% met criteria for moderate risk substance use disorder problem 10.9% met criteria for a severe risk substance use disorder problem 6 P age

8 Last years results for the DSM-V calculation were: 81% did not meet criteria, 10% were reported Mild Risk, 4% were Moderate Risk, and 5% were Severe Risk. The did not meet criteria category is almost 15% less than what last year reported; the Severe Risk category is almost 6% more this reporting period. The current results are not consistent with last years. RISK RANGE ANALYSIS Risk ranges represent degree of severity and were established by converting raw scores to percentile scores by using cumulative percentage distributions. For each DRI-2 scale, respondents were classified into four risk ranges: low risk (zero to 39th percentile), moderate risk (40th to 69th percentile), problem risk (70th to 89th percentile), and severe problem risk (90th to 100th percentile). The expected percentage of offenders within in the Low Risk is 39%, Moderate Risk is 30%, Problem Risk is 20%, and the expected percentage for Severe Problem classification is 11%. DRI-2 Offender Risk Range Summary Table (N= 4,467) Scale* Low Risk (39%) Moderate Risk (30%) Problem Risk (20%) Severe Problem (11%) Truthfulness Alcohol Drugs Driver Risk Stress Management *Bolded numbers are those that are more than 5% in the undesired directions from the expected risk ranges. 7 P age

9 DRI-2 Offender Risk Range Summary Chart (N= 4,467) As displayed in the table and chart above, the majority of the Illinois DUI Program offenders scores were not extremely consistent with the expected percentile ranges of the general population. It s important to keep in mind that those percentages are the make-up that s expected from the general population as a whole; this particular dataset is analyzing DUI offenders specifically, so it s not expected that they will match up completely. As for analyses, within the Low Risk range, both the Truthfulness and Alcohol scales are lower than the expected percentages by 15% each, whereas the Drugs and Stress Management scales show that the majority of people in this dataset are in the Low Risk range for said categories (having higher low risk ranges are preferred). For the Moderate Risk range, the Alcohol and Driver Risk categories exceed expectations by about 11%-12%, showing that the majority of both categories sit in the Moderate Risk range; previous reports offered that this could indicate that many of the offenders would benefit from light counseling or non-intensive rehabilitation and driving programs. In the Problem Risk range, the Truthfulness scale majority sits at 36%, exceeding the Problem Risk expectation by 16%. Lastly, in the Severe Problem Risk range, only the Alcohol scale exceeds the expectation by 4%. After rerunning the numbers from the previous reporting period, risk range results are largely consistent with the previous results. 8 P age

10 DRI-II This section summarizes the demographic characteristics of 509* offenders who completed the DRI-II. Characteristics include age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education achieved. In addition, self-reported breath alcohol content, offender status, and criminal history data are also presented. *This report has a much smaller dataset than what has been reported in the previous years; the dataset is only 13% the size of last reporting periods dataset. With a much smaller dataset, results may not be completely consistent with what has been reported in the past. OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS The average age for offenders was: 37 for all offenders o 37.3 for male offenders o 36.5 for female offenders o 35.5 for first-time offenders o 40.5 for repeat offenders The average age for all offenders in the previous reporting period was 34 years. Current results are not consistent with the last reporting period. Gender is summarized below: 74.5% (3,371) were male 25.5% (1,096) were female For 2015, 73% were male and 27% were female. The current results are consistent with the last reporting period. Race and ethnicity is presented below: 81.1% (413) were Caucasian 11.2% (57) were African-American 5.7% (29) were Hispanic <1% (2) were Asian 0% (0) were Native American 1.2% (6) reported Other, but did not provide any additional information Information was missing for 2 offenders. 9 P age

11 Last year, the results were as follows: 69% Caucasian, 14% Hispanic, 3% Asian, <1% Native American, and 2% Other. The current results were not very consistent with the last reporting period. Below summarizes inmate Marital Status: 56.4% (287) were single 20.0% (102) were married 17.1% (87) were divorced 4.1% (21) were separated 1.2% (6) were widowed Information was missing for 6 offenders. The results from last reporting period were: 64% Single, 19% Married, 13% Divorced, 3% Separated, and 1% were Widowed. These results are somewhat consistent with last year. Education Achieved is displayed below: 2.8% (14) completed less than 8 th grade 7.7% (39) partially completed high school 8.3% (42) obtained a GED 43.0% (219) graduated high school 2.2% (11) partially completed college 19.8% (101) attended technical/business school 12.8% (65) graduated college 2.4% (12) attended graduate school Information was missing for 6 offenders. The results from the last reporting period showed 1% completed less than 8 th grade, 5% partially completed high school, 68% obtained a GED or graduated high school, 18% partially completed college, 5% attended technical or business school, 2% graduated college, and <1% attended graduate school. The results are not consistent with last year. 10 P age

12 BREATH ALCOHOL CONTENT Current Breath Alcohol Content results were: 5.1% (26) had BAC % (111) had BAC % (95) had BAC % (29) had BAC % (13) had BAC % (13) had BAC.45+* 18.1% (92) selected Refused 25.5% (130) results were Not Available This section was not reported last year, so there are no results to compare to. *Note that a Breath Alcohol Content of.4 or more normally indicates onset of coma and can even result in death. Scales were adjusted so that potentially meaningful outliers up to.44 would not be overlooked; any case in the.45 or higher level is likely a data entry error. There were up to 274 BAC responses used to calculate the average BAC, BAC by gender, and BAC by offender status. All other cases refused to respond, left the question blank, or entered an invalid BAC when taking the test. The average self-reported BACs were:.139 for all offenders BAC by gender.137 for male offenders.146 for female offenders BAC by self-reported offender status.137 for first-time offenders.147 for repeat offenders The average staff-reported BACs were:.131 for all offenders BAC by gender.128 for male offenders.141 for female offenders BAC by staff-reported offender status.121 for first-time offenders.141 for repeat offender 11 P age

13 T-test results for BAC by gender were not statistically significant. Results for self-reported BAC by self-reported AND staff-reported offender status were not significant. Results for staff-reported BAC by self-reported AND staff-reported offender status were statistically significant. This suggests that only that offender status and staff-reported BAC may have an effect on each other. Staff-reported BAC and staff-reported offender status had more significance than staff-reported BAC and self-reported offender status. The BAC average for all offenders last year was.153. The total BAC average this year was much lower than last year. Gender and Offender status results were not reported. COURT HISTORY This section of the report summarizes court history responses provided by the offenders who took the DRI-II. Initially, individuals were categorized into first-time offenders and repeat offenders based on the number of lifetime DUIs they reported. First-time offenders were defined as offenders with up to one DUI arrest; repeat offenders were defined as individuals with two or more DUI arrests. Offender Status: Self-reported 68.2% (347) were first-time offenders 31.8% (162) were repeat offenders Staff-reported 51.1% (260) were first-time offenders 48.5% (247) were repeat offenders Information was missing for 2 offenders. With such a large difference between the self-reported and staff-reported information, the accuracy and integrity of the information being analyzed is questionable. In order to ensure accuracy, it is important that the offenders and staff know what they are answering. Something to keep in mind is that the two variables (self-reported DUI priors and staff-reported DUI priors) are only 67% correlated, according to a T-test. Last year reported 96% of offenders to be first-time offenders and 4% to be repeat offenders. These results are not consistent with last year. In order to maintain consistency, the rest of the report will refer to self-reported information from the offenders, unless stated otherwise. The DRI-II Court History Chart on the next page displays DRI-II offenders court history. Four categories were created to organize offender responses; 0 arrests, 1 arrest, 2 arrests, and 3 or more arrests. If the columns do not sum up to be 509, it is due to the presence of missing data. 12 P age

14 As noted in the DRI-II Court History Chart above, of the offenders who provided responses, 32% of offenders had one or more DUI, 18% had one or more alcohol-related arrests that were not DUI related, 17% had one more drug arrests (not DUI related), 32% had one or more at-fault accidents, 68% had one or more traffic violations, 20% had one or more prior statutory summary suspensions unrelated to their DUIs, 5% had one or more reckless driving convictions reduced from their DUIs, and 23% had one or more court-ordered supervisions for DUIs in the last 10 years. Last reporting period had reported 28% of offenders had one or more DUI, 19% had one or more alcohol-related arrests that were not DUI related, 14% had one more drug arrests (not DUI related), 21% had one or more at-fault accidents, 82% had one or more traffic violations, 2% had one or more prior statutory summary suspensions unrelated to their DUIs, 2% had one or more reckless driving convictions reduced from their DUIs, and 4% had one or more court-ordered supervisions for DUIs in the last 10 years. Only some of the current results are consistent with the last reporting period. 13 P age

15 SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER DSM-IV classification for Substance Abuse and Substance Dependence is distinguished by a series of DRI-II items. 74.7% of offenders met the criteria for a substance abuse diagnosis 22.8% of offenders met the criteria for a substance dependence diagnosis. Last year reported 58% of offenders to have met the criteria for a substance abuse diagnosis and 18% to have met the criteria for a substance dependence diagnosis. Results are slightly consistent. RISK RANGE ANALYSIS Risk ranges represent degree of severity and were established by converting raw scores to percentile scores by using cumulative percentage distributions. For each DRI-II scale, respondents were classified into four risk ranges: low risk (zero to 39th percentile), moderate risk (40th to 69th percentile), problem risk (70th to 89th percentile), and severe problem risk (90th to 100th percentile). The expected percentage of people in the general population within in the Low Risk is 39%, Moderate Risk is 30%, Problem Risk is 20%, and the expected percentage for Severe Problem classification is 11%. DRI-II Offender Risk Range Summary Table (N= 509) Scale* Low Risk (39%) Moderate Risk (30%) Problem Risk (20%) Severe Problem (11%) Truthfulness Alcohol Drugs Driver Risk Stress Management *Bolded numbers are those that are more than 5% in the undesired directions from the expected risk ranges. 14 P age

16 DRI-II Offender Risk Range Summary Chart (N= 509) As displayed in the table and chart above, the majority of the Illinois DUI Program offenders scores were not extremely consistent with the expected percentile ranges of the general population. It s important to keep in mind that those percentages are the make-up that s expected from the general population as a whole; this particular dataset is analyzing DUI offenders specifically, so it s not expected that they will match up completely. As for analyses, within the Low Risk range, both the Truthfulness and Stress Management scales are lower than the expected percentages by 7% and 5% respectively, but still maintain the majority of offenders. The Alcohol, Drugs and Driver Risk scales don t drop below the expected percentage. Every scale in this dataset maintains the majority as Low Risk offenders (having higher low risk ranges are preferred). For the Moderate Risk range, the Truthfulness scale is the only one to exceed the expected percentage, but only does so by 1%. In the Problem Risk range, the Truthfulness scale sits at 30%, exceeding the Problem Risk expectation by 10%. Lastly, in the Severe Problem Risk range, every scale, except Truthfulness exceeds the expected percentage. Alcohol exceeds by 3%, Drugs and Stress Management by 8%, and Driver Risk by 5%. One should focus on why the Drugs and Stress Management scales are so high at 19%. Results are not consistent with the previous reporting period. 15 P age

17 APPENDIX I TEST STATISTICS The DRI-2 and DRI-II are DUI screening assessments that have been widely used across the United States and have demonstrated high reliability, accuracy, and validity in identifying offenders with severe problems. The DRI-2 and DRI-II are used in many assessment programs, municipal courts, county courts, probation departments, community corrections, and treatment agencies. The DRI-2 has 113 test items that comprise 5 scales and a Substance Abuse/Dependency Classification (DSM-V). The DRI-II has 140 test items that comprise 5 scales and a Substance Abuse/Dependency Classification (DSM-IV). The Truthfulness Scale is unique among our assessments and identifies denial, guardedness, problem minimization, and attempts to fake good. These tests are written at a 5 th 6 th grade reading level and take an average of 30 minutes to complete. Truthfulness Scale Each test contains a Truthfulness Scale. Truthfulness Scales have been influenced by MMPI Truthfulness Scale methodology. Research has demonstrated that truthfulness is linked to positive treatment outcomes (Barber, et al., 2001; Simpson, 2004). While denial (refutation, problem minimization or lying) has been linked to negative treatment outcomes (Marshall, Thornton, Marshall, Fernandez & Mann, 2001); resistance (Simpson, 2004); problem minimization (Murphy & Baxter, 1997); treatment dropout (Daly & Pelowski, 2000; Evans, Libo & Hser, 2009); and recidivism (Grann & Wedin, 2002; Nunes, Hanson, Firestone, Moulden, Greenberg & Bradford, 2007). The impact of truthfulness on test scores is largely contingent upon the severity of client denial or untruthfulness. A truthfulness-related problem is identified when a Truthfulness Scale score is at or above the Problem Risk range. Problem (70 to 89 th percentile) scorers are typically cautious, guarded and defensive respondents. Problem scorer s test answers should be dealt with carefully in a prudent manner. Severe problem scorers (90 to 100 th percentile) invalidate their test and all scales contained therein. Reliability Test reliability refers to a scale s consistency of measurement. Cronbach s Alpha, a measure of reliability, measured the internal consistency of the items in each scale of the DRI-2 and DRI-II. Perfect reliability is The professionally accepted reliability standard for this type of instrument is (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2001). Validity In testing, the term validity refers to the extent that a test measures what it was designed to measure. A test cannot be accurate without being valid. When individuals known to have more severe problems attain higher (more severe) scale scores than individuals known to have fewer or no problems, test validity is supported. 16 P age