Florida Impaired Driving Strategic Plan

Transcription

1

2

3 Florida Impaired Driving Strategic Plan prepared for The Florida Impaired Driving Coalition date September 2011

4

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Florida Impaired Driving Coalition Guiding Principles Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan Florida s Challenge Alcohol and Drug Involved Crashes Arrests, Suspensions, and Convictions Administrative Hearings DUI Education and Treatment Impaired Driving Crash Factors Age Sex of Impaired Drivers Location Residence of Impaired Driver Time of Day and Day of the Week Occupant Restraint Use by Driver Behavior and Attitudes Purpose of the Strategic Plan Mission and Goal Development of the Plan Impaired Driving Assessment Florida Impaired Driving Coalition Coalition Members Strategic Plan Goal 1: Improve DUI Enforcement Goal 2: Improve Prosecution and Adjudication of Impaired Driving Cases Goal 3: Improve the Dui Administrative Suspension Process Goal 4: Improve Prevention, Public Education, and Training Goal 5: Improve the Treatment System in Florida Goal 6: Improve Data Collection and Analysis Goal 7: Enhance Impaired Driving Legislation i

6

7 List of Tables Table 1.1 DUI Arrests, Suspensions, and Convictions 2005 to Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 2.1 Suspensions Recorded and Administrative Reviews Scheduled 2005 to Administrative Reviews Held, Sustained, or Invalidated 2005 to Impaired Driving Fatal Crashes by County and Year 2005 to Table 2.2 Impaired Driving Fatal Crashes by Time of Day 2005 to Table 2.3 Impaired Driving Fatalities by Time of Day 2005 to Table 2.4 Impaired Driving Serious Injuries by Time of Day 2005 to Table 2.5 Rode in Vehicle with Driver Who Had Been Drinking in Past 30 Days 2001 to Table 2.6 Operated Vehicle When Drinking Alcohol in Past 30 Days 2001 to Table 3.1 Florida Impaired Driving Coalition Core Members Table 3.2 Florida Impaired Driving Coalition Supporting Members iii

8

9 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Crashes Involving Driver Impairment by Alcohol Only 2005 to Figure 1.2 Crashes Involving Driver Impairment by Drugs Only 2005 to Figure 1.3 Crashes Involving Driver Impairment by Alcohol and Drugs 2005 to Figure 1.4 Crashes Involving Driver Impairment by Alcohol and/or Drugs 2005 to Figure 2.1 Impaired Driving Fatalities by Driver Age and Year 2005 to Figure 2.2 Percent Impaired Driving Fatal Crashes by Sex of Driver 2005 to Figure 2.3 Impaired Driving Fatalities by License Type 2005 to Figure 2.4 Percent of Impaired Driving Fatal Crashes by Day of Week 2005 to Figure 2.5 Percent of Impaired Drivers in Fatal Crashes Not Using an Occupant Restraint 2005 to v

10

11 Executive Summary Despite impressive reductions in traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries in Florida over the past several years, there are a number of problems that continue to cause havoc on the roadways alcohol-involved crashes is one of those problems. In 2008, nearly 1,100 alcohol-related fatalities occurred in Florida and 850 of these fatalities were drivers with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08 or higher. These drivers were involved in 29 percent of all crash fatalities. In fact, alcohol-related fatalities consistently represent 32 to 38 percent of Florida s annual motor vehicle fatalities. Despite significant reductions in many impaired driving-related crash categories from 2005 to 2009, the number of crashes, fatalities, and injuries continue to be unacceptable. To address the issue of impaired driving, the Florida Department of Transportation s (FDOT) Safety Office requested a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) technical assessment of Florida s impaired driving countermeasures program in One priority recommendations from the assessment stated Florida should develop and implement a comprehensive strategic plan specifically for impaired driving. In 2009, FDOT facilitated the establishment of the Florida Impaired Driving Coalition (FIDC). Agencies and organizations responsible for components of Florida s impaired driving system, or those agencies working to impact the effects of impaired driving, are participating in the FIDC. The FIDC was formed to identify and prioritize the State s most pressing impaired driving issues, review proven strategies, develop a strategic plan to serve as the blueprint for programs, funding, and potential legislative strategies that maximize the State s ability to impact these crashes, and oversee implementation of the strategic plan. FIDC members identified the following guiding principles during the strategic planning process: Public highways continue to be a place where the safety of Florida citizens is threatened, and impaired driving is one of the causes. Historical efforts to affect impaired driving have identified statutory and administration shortcomings which can and must be addressed to improve citizens safety. The network of partners involved in the DUI issue must have easy access to information systems to share all relevant data germane to their shared mission. The tragic consequences of continued driving by DUI offenders demands swift and sure resolution of pending cases. Effective prosecution of DUI defendants requires specially trained and dedicated prosecutors supported by trained law enforcement witnesses, quick laboratory analysis, and educated jurists. ES-1

12 The maintenance of staffing levels for law enforcement agencies is critical to the mission of fighting impaired driving crashes. Continually changing societal mores requires a collaborative comprehensive education program to sustain Florida s quality of life. Treatment specialists must be organized, trained, and widely available to assist persons with substance abuse disorders to reach their recovery goals. These guiding principles focused the FIDC s efforts on the areas of data collection and usage, law enforcement and prosecution, public information and education, sanctions and treatment, and legislation. The FIDC met six times from April through December In addition to collecting and studying available data and discussing procedural issues, the FIDC requested guest speakers to provide detailed first-hand information about key issues or successful localized programs. An Administrative Process Task Force reviewed the State s administrative hearing process for licensure, how it impacts law enforcement officers who make the DUI arrests, and explored to make recommendations for improvements in the process. The FIDC established an overall goal to reduce the number of impaired driving fatalities and serious injuries by 15 percent by The following seven goals are designed to accomplish that overall goal: 1. Improve DUI Enforcement; 2. Improve Prosecution and Adjudication of Impaired Driving Cases; 3. Improve the DUI Administrative Suspension Process; 4. Improve Prevention, Public Education, and Training; 5. Improve the Treatment System in Florida; 6. Improve Data Collection and Analysis; and 7. Enhance Impaired Driving Legislation. Over a period of nine months, the FIDC discussed the appropriate strategies and action steps under each of these goals. In addition, the FIDC action step leaders, who will ensure the plan is implemented, were identified. The next three sections discuss why the Impaired Driving Strategic Plan (IDSP) was drafted, provide an overview of impaired driving crash factors and data the FIDC studied, and discuss the background and purpose of the IDSP. The final section is the Impaired Driving Strategic Plan, which includes 31 strategies and identifies four top-priority and five priority legislative recommendations. In addition to drafting the plan, the FIDC will oversee implementation of Florida s IDSP over the next five years and compare results to determine the success of the effort. ES-2

13 1.0 Introduction 1.1 FLORIDA IMPAIRED DRIVING COALITION GUIDING PRINCIPLES The Florida Impaired Driving Coalition (FIDC) was formed to identify and prioritize the State s most pressing impaired driving issues, review strategies which have been proven effective in impacting those issues, develop a strategic plan which will serve as the blueprint for legislation, programs, and funding strategies to maximize the State s ability to impact these crashes, and oversee implementation of the strategic plan. During the strategic planning process, FIDC members identified the following guiding principles: One of the most serious threats to our citizens resides on our public highways. Part of the threat remains impaired drivers. Historical efforts to affect impaired driving have identified statutory and administration shortcomings which can and must be addressed to improve our citizens safety. The vast network of disparate partners who exist to reduce the occurrence of DUI must have easy access to information systems to share all relevant data germane to their shared mission. The tragic consequences of continued driving by DUI offenders demands swift and sure resolution of pending cases. Effective prosecution of DUI defendants requires specially trained and dedicated prosecutors supported by quick laboratory analysis and educated jurists. The maintenance of staffing levels for law enforcement agencies is critical to the mission of fighting impaired driving crashes. Because continually changing societal mores at times affect all of us in nonproductive ways, including impaired driving, there must be a continued collaborative comprehensive education program to ensure our rising quality of life. Treatment specialists must be superbly organized, trained, and widely available to assist persons with substance abuse disorders to reach their recovery goals. 1-1

14 1.2 FLORIDA STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN The Impaired Driving Strategic Plan (IDSP) is closely related to Florida s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The purpose of the SHSP is to improve road safety for residents and visitors by targeting efforts at four emphasis areas aggressive driving, intersection crashes, vulnerable road users, and lanedeparture crashes. The SHSP identifies occupant protection, data, and impaired driving as continuing priority areas because of existing comprehensive statewide efforts. The IDSP serves as a complement to the SHSP by describing the impaired driving efforts deemed critical to improve the State s road safety and providing additional detail of the specific strategies and action steps to reduce impaired driving crashes. To ensure the SHSP remains focused and strategic, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has been working with the SHSP leadership group and other safety partners to gather information regarding the need to amend the SHSP. In that regard, FDOT held a statewide Summit in August 2010 and rolled out a safety opinion survey through its Safety Office web site to as many safety groups, individuals, and organizations as possible. This information will be presented to the SHSP Executive Committee for consideration of when and how the SHSP should be amended. The SHSP and any future amendments can be found at: FLORIDA S CHALLENGE Alcohol and Drug Involved Crashes In 2006 and again in 2009, Florida reported the biggest drop in alcohol-related fatalities of any state in the nation. From 2007 to 2008, Florida crashes for drivers under the influence or had been drinking (based on alcohol/drug use code with alcohol/drug test results) dropped 1.8 percent, fatalities dropped 12.2 percent, and serious injuries dropped 2.9 percent. From 2008 to 2009, crashes dropped 8.7 percent, while fatalities dropped 2.3 percent, and serious injuries dropped 10.0 percent. Figure 1.1 shows Florida crashes involving drivers impaired by alcohol only for the years

15 Figure 1.1 Crashes Involving Driver Impairment by Alcohol Only 2005 to ,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Total Crashes 21,011 20,119 20,090 19,734 18,011 Total Fatalities Total Injuries 6,716 6,200 6,207 6,080 5,473 Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to While slight changes occurred from 2005 to 2009 among total crashes, fatalities involving drivers with impairment by drugs only (based on alcohol/drug use code with alcohol/drug test results) dropped 49.2 percent, from 197 in 2005 to 100 in 2009 (Figure 1.2). Figure 1.2 Crashes Involving Driver Impairment by Drugs Only 2005 to ,400 1,200 1, Total Crashes 1,079 1,069 1,123 1,091 1,262 Total Fatalities Total Injuries Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to

16 Fatalities due to alcohol and drug crashes (based on alcohol/drug use code) dropped from 193 to 137, or 29.0 percent, from 2005 to Serious injuries for the same category of crashes fell by 20.5 percent as shown in Figure 1.3. Figure 1.3 Crashes Involving Driver Impairment by Alcohol and Drugs 2005 to ,400 1,200 1, Total Crashes 1,196 1,215 1,164 1,175 1,004 Total Fatalities Total Injuries Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to Significant reductions have occurred in all crash injury categories from 2005 to 2009 for drivers who operated their vehicle under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (based on alcohol/drug use code with alcohol/drug test results) as shown in Figure

17 Figure 1.4 Crashes Involving Driver Impairment by Alcohol and/or Drugs 2005 to ,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Total Crashes 23,286 22,403 22,377 22,000 20,277 Total Fatalities 1, , Total Injuries 7,462 7,006 6,963 6,702 6,155 Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to Arrests, Suspensions, and Convictions Another measure of the impaired driving problem involves arrests, suspensions, and convictions. The data in Table 1.1 represent events, not people, and provides a snapshot of data accessed on December 13, Events are used rather than people because reporting people results in underreporting since multiple offenders would only be reported once. Arrest data was obtained from the Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC) Report, and convictions from disposition information in the Driver License database. Information on DUI Conviction Uninsured and Insured was obtained from the conviction numbers, and DUI Conviction Unlicensed and Licensed from the driver class code. Blood alcohol content (BAC) data was obtained from the information submitted by the arresting officer to the local Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), Bureau of Administrative Review (BAR) office which includes a copy of the breath test result affidavit or refusal affidavit. Based on these affidavits Florida s refusal rate for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2009 was 31 percent and the percent of refusals in 2009 also was 31 percent. 1-5

18 Table 1.1 DUI Arrests, Suspensions, and Convictions 2005 to 2009 Event DUI Arrests 67,450 63,591 64,410 65,654 63,019 DUI Convictions 37,734 34,638 35,372 38,664 36,872 DUI Pending Dispositions 21,910 21,217 20,919 16,787 16,554 DUI Conviction Uninsured 2,748 2,760 2,744 2,603 2,105 DUI Conviction Insured 44,801 44,994 44,733 42,423 34,317 DUI Conviction Unlicensed 3,074 3,481 3,386 2,886 11,862 DUI Conviction Licensed 44,475 44,273 44,091 42,140 24,560 Refusals 19,809 20,124 20,885 19,949 19,675 DUI Administrative Suspensions 31,590 30,745 30,478 28,907 27,105 Zero Tolerance Suspensions Source: Florida DHSMV, It is unlawful for a person under the age of 21 to operate a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.02 or higher (referred to as zero tolerance). Drivers found guilty of this offense or who refuse breath alcohol test can have their license suspended. Zero tolerance suspensions, which were at 1,557 in 2000, peaked at 1,732 in 2001, and were at a low of 272 in Possible reasons for the low number of suspensions in 2009 include the long process involved in arresting juveniles coupled with manpower issues at law enforcement agencies. In some cases, the youth are not arrested for impaired driving, but rather turned over to their parents. Administrative Hearings The arrest of an individual Driving with an Unlawful Breath or Blood Alcohol Level (DUBAL) of 0.08 or higher or a refusal to submit to a BAC test results in a DUI citation. Upon arrest, the law enforcement officer issues a Notice of Suspension, which gives the individual with a full license 10 days to drive on a temporary permit with no additional restrictions and to challenge the suspension by requesting an administrative review. Within five days of the arrest, the arresting law enforcement officer submits the arrest packet to the local BAR office. The packet contains a copy of the notice of suspension, the driver license, probable cause affidavit, alcohol influence report, breath test result affidavit or refusal affidavit, agency inspection report, crash report, and, if available, a video of the arrest. Upon receipt of the packet, the BAR enters the suspension on the driver s record as DUBAL (0.08 or above BAC reading; 0.02 or higher for persons under the age of 21) or Refusal (to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test). Table 1.2 shows the number of adult and minor (persons under age 21) DUBAL and refusal suspensions recorded and the number of administrative reviews scheduled for years 2005 through

19 Table 1.2 Suspensions Recorded and Administrative Reviews Scheduled 2005 to Adult DUBAL Suspensions Recorded 35,744 34,653 33,621 31,549 29,504 Adult Refusal Suspensions Recorded 24,272 24,244 24,264 23,549 22,617 Minor a DUBAL Suspensions Recorded 1,314 1,254 1,461 1,310 1,211 Minor* Refusal Suspensions Recorded Total Administrative Suspensions Recorded 61,596 60,305 59,507 56,530 53,438 Administrative Suspension/Disqualification Reviews Scheduled Source: Florida DHSMV, a Minor is under 21 years of age. 33,661 34,200 30,793 28,283 27,037 The driver and/or attorney can request an administrative review before a hearing officer. The hearing officer is required to enter into evidence certain documents and determine whether 1) the arresting officer had probable cause, 2) the driver had an unlawful alcohol level, 3) the driver refused to submit to a test, and 4) the driver was informed their privilege to operate a motor vehicle would be suspended. The hearing officer has seven working days to determine if the evidence supports the suspension; if the evidence indicates the suspension was not valid, the case is invalidated and all entries are removed from the driver s record. Table 1.3 details the percent of administrative reviews requested and the resulting number of reviews held, sustained, or invalidated. Table 1.3 Administrative Reviews Held, Sustained, or Invalidated 2005 to Percent of Drivers Requesting Reviews 55% 57% 52% 50% 51% Total Adult Reviews Held 22,143 22,787 21,961 22,561 22,126 Total Adult Reviews Sustained 13,037 13,324 14,732 14,464 15,189 Total Adult Reviews Invalidated 7,098 7,673 5,835 6,752 5,259 Total Minor a Reviews Held Total Minor a Reviews Sustained Total Minor a Reviews Invalidated

20 Table 1.3 Administrative Reviews Held, Sustained, or Invalidated (continued) 2005 to Grand Total Reviews Held 22,755 23,339 22,490 23,068 22,609 Total Adult and Minor a Reviews Sustained 54,352 52,489 53,544 49,662 48,091 Total Reviews Invalidated 7,244 7,816 5,963 6,868 5,347 Grand Total Reviews Held (Adult and Minor a ) 22,755 23,339 22,490 23,068 22,609 Percentage Reviews Sustained 88% 87% 90% 88% 90% 13,118 13,420 14,875 14,587 15,318 Source: Florida DHSMV, a Minor is under 21 years of age. DUI Education and Treatment To satisfy judicial and driver licensing requirements, DHSMV oversees 26 licensed DUI programs which provide education, a psychosocial evaluation, and treatment referral services to DUI offenders. These programs offer two educational services Level I for first-time offenders and Level II for multiple offenders. Additionally, these DUI Programs provide treatment referrals, interventions, and monitoring for persons completing DUI School, for persons with Ignition Interlock Devise violations, and for persons in the Special Supervision Services Program with treatment needs. The profile of individuals who participate in Florida s DUI program is not representative of all DUIs, just individuals who register for the program. A profile of DUI program participants in 2009 includes the following: 75.8 percent are male; 70.6 percent are Caucasian; 19 percent are Hispanic; 7.8 percent are African American; 72.4 percent are first offenders; 69.1 percent are ages 21 to 50 (multiple offenders are significantly older); 57.6 percent are single; 35.5 percent completed high school; 0.16 is the average BAC; 24.5 percent refused breath test; and 62 percent meet the criteria for substance abuse disorders based on the screening are classified by DHSMV as substance abusers. 1-8

21 A Special Supervision Program is required for individuals who have successfully completed an administrative hearing with the BAR to obtain a hardship driver license. This program is for individuals who have made a commitment to abstinence from alcohol and other drugs and whose driver license has been revoked or suspended due to DUI for a period of 5 years, 10 years, or in some cases, permanently. Program participants are supervised by a licensed DUI program and must remain in the program until the end of their driver s license revocation. In 2009, DHSMV reported 5,499 individuals were classified as multiple offenders, and 3,638 individuals opted for special supervision. These individuals qualified for, and were accepted into, the Special Supervision Services Program which has had over 40,000 participants since its inception in Certain individuals are required to have Ignition Interlock Devises installed in vehicles they routinely operate. The requirements are based statutorily on factors such the BAC upon conviction, the number of DUI offenses, and extenuating circumstances such as having a minor in the vehicle at the time of the DUI arrest. Florida Statute establishes thresholds for IID violations, and offers these persons a unique opportunity for intervention. First-time violators are required to participate in a one-time intervention to review the proper operation of the devise and the consequences of future violations. Individuals with two violations are monitored monthly by the DUI Programs for the duration of their IID requirement, and receive case management and monthly intervention to address ongoing issues with drinking and driving. In addition to monthly case management, individuals with three or more violations receive additional intervention of substance abuse treatment. Although there are exceptions, many IID violators continue to drink and drive. While most are not drinking in excess of the presumptive limit of 0.08, many have the false belief driving under the presumptive limit is safe. The unique opportunity Florida offers allows these persons to examine their beliefs and behaviors. 1-9

22

23 2.0 Impaired Driving Crash Factors Fatalities due to driving under the influence of alcohol or other controlled substances have been on the decline in Florida since However, such fatalities are overrepresented and the proportion of alcohol-impaired fatalities has been increasing in the State for the same period. Understanding the sociodemographic factors will help law enforcement officers, safety stakeholders, treatment and prevention specialists, advocates, educators, planners, and engineers identify goals and strategies that address this serious problem. The following sections identify crash factors associated with impaired driving crashes in Florida. 2.1 AGE Figure 2.1 on the following page shows impaired driving fatalities in Florida by driver age group and year. The total number of fatalities shown in Figure 2.1 is more than the fatalities shown in Figure 1.4 because they are counted in each age group involved in any particular crash. In the five-year period from 2005 to 2009: More people died in fatal crashes associated with drivers in the 25 to 34 age group, followed closely by 35- to 44-year-olds; Young drivers (under 21 years and 21 to 24 years, combined) accounted for more fatalities than any other age group of drivers; and Overall fatalities dropped 23.6 percent from 2005 to 2009; and fatalities associated with age groups 25 to 34 years and younger than 24 years, dropped 18.2 percent and percent, respectively. 2-1

24 Figure 2.1 Impaired Driving Fatalities by Driver Age and Year 2005 to < Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to SEX OF IMPAIRED DRIVERS Male drivers are involved in approximately 80 percent or more of Florida s impaired driving fatal crashes although females are increasingly involved in these crashes. In 2009, the number of female drivers involved in fatal impaired driving crashes increased to 19.2 percent. Figure 2.2 shows the gender split for these crashes from the years 2005 to Figure 2.2 Percent Impaired Driving Fatal Crashes by Sex of Driver 2005 to % 86.3% 84.1% 85.0% 82.9% 80.8% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13.8% 16.2% 15.2% 17.1% 19.2% 0% Male Female Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to

25 2.3 LOCATION Table 2.1 shows the impaired driving fatal crashes for the 67 counties in Florida. Palm Beach County leads the aggregate total fatal crashes for the years 2005 to 2009 followed by Miami-Dade, Orange, Hillsborough, Duval, and Broward Counties. Table 2.1 Impaired Driving Fatal Crashes by County and Year 2005 to 2009 County Percent Reduction Palm Beach % Miami-Dade % Orange % Hillsborough % Duval % Broward % Volusia % Brevard % Pinellas % Polk % Marion % Lee % Pasco % Escambia % Lake % Osceola % Sarasota % Alachua % Seminole % Bay % Leon % Manatee % St. Johns % Collier % Clay % St. Lucie % Charlotte % Flagler % Columbia % Martin % Okaloosa % 2-3

26 Table 2.1 Impaired Driving Fatal Crashes by County and Year (continued) 2005 to 2009 County Percent Reduction Citrus % Gadsden % Walton % Santa Rosa % Monroe % Jackson % Nassau % Putnam % Highlands % Indian % Hendry % Hernando % Levy % Suwannee % Madison % Okeechobee % DeSoto % Jefferson % Bradford % Sumter % Dixie % Hamilton % Washington % Wakulla % Gilchrist % Baker % Gulf % Union % Hardee % Taylor % Calhoun % Franklin % Glades % Holmes % Liberty % Lafayette % Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to Note: Positive numbers indicate a reduction; negative numbers indicate an increase. 2-4

27 2.4 RESIDENCE OF IMPAIRED DRIVER Florida is a popular tourist destination and people from across the nation and other countries flock to its numerous attractions. It is important to understand the size of the in-state and out-of-state driver populations involved in impaired driving crashes to develop adequate strategies to address the problem. Figure 2.3 shows the majority of impaired driving fatalities can be attributed to drivers with a Florida driver s license. The distribution had been consistent among the two groups between the years 2005 to Figure 2.3 Impaired Driving Fatalities by License Type 2005 to % 9.8% % 9.5% % 10.3% % 9.8% % 6.9% Florida License Out-of-State License Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to TIME OF DAY AND DAY OF THE WEEK Most impaired driving crashes occur during the early hours of the morning, with the majority of the crashes occurring between midnight and 3:00 a.m., followed by 9:00 p.m. until midnight. Most impaired driving crashes occur during the weekend. Table 2.2 shows the number of fatal crashes occurring at different times of day, whereas Tables 2.3 and 2.4 show the distribution of fatalities and serious injuries by time of day. 2-5

28 Table 2.2 Impaired Driving Fatal Crashes by Time of Day 2005 to 2009 Time of Day Midnight to 3:00 a.m :00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m :00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m :00 a.m. to Noon Noon to 3:00 p.m :00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m :00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m :00 p.m. to Midnight Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to Table 2.3 Impaired Driving Fatalities by Time of Day 2005 to 2009 Time of Day Midnight to 3:00 a.m :00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m :00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m :00 a.m. to Noon Noon to 3:00 p.m :00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m :00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m :00 p.m. to Midnight Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to Table 2.4 Impaired Driving Serious Injuries by Time of Day 2005 to 2009 Time of Day Midnight to 3:00 a.m. 1,243 1,218 1,306 1,227 1,116 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m :00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m :00 a.m. to Noon Noon to 3:00 p.m :00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m :00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 1,366 1,343 1,277 1,216 1,134 9:00 p.m. to Midnight 1,695 1,516 1,590 1,480 1,384 Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to

29 Figure 2.4 shows the percentage of fatal impaired driving crashes occurring during different days of the week aggregated for the years 2005 to Figure 2.4 Percent of Impaired Driving Fatal Crashes by Day of Week 2005 to % 21.4% 21.7% 10.3% 10.7% 10.4% Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Source: Florida DHSMV, 2005 to % 2.6 OCCUPANT RESTRAINT USE BY DRIVER Figure 2.5 shows the percentage of fatally injured impaired drivers who were not using occupant restraints at the time of the crash. In 2009, almost a seventh of these drivers did not use occupant restraints in the vehicle. Florida passed a primary safety belt law effective June 30, Even though usage increased significantly in 2009, the actual percentage of nonuse in impaired driving crashes is still high. By comparison, the overall observed safety belt use rate for drivers in Florida was 85.2 percent in 2009; 84 percent for male drivers and 89.6 for female drivers. In 2010, Florida reached an all-time high in safety belt use of 87.4 percent; with 84.2 percent use for male drivers and 90.7 percent use for female drivers. 2-7

30 Figure 2.5 Percent of Impaired Drivers in Fatal Crashes Not Using an Occupant Restraint 2005 to % 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 78.4% 79.0% 77.9% 78.1% 69.6% Source: FARS, BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDES The FDOT Safety Office conducts an annual telephone survey of car drivers throughout the State, in part, to determine the effectiveness of the State s DUI paid media campaign. Survey questions provide insight into behavior and attitudes among Florida drivers identified by age, gender, and ethnicity. The Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Survey 2010 telephone interviews were conducted August 11 through August 17 and September 21 through September 28, The majority of survey respondents (approximately two-thirds) reported not consuming alcohol at all in a typical week, and approximately one-quarter of respondents reported drinking only one to two days per week. Fifty percent indicated they had not consumed any alcohol within the past year. Forty-five to 54-year-old respondents were the most likely to consume alcohol on any day during a typical week. Approximately three-quarters of female respondents (74.3 percent) reported not consuming two or more alcoholic beverages in one sitting, versus 63 percent of the males interviewed. Males reported they were more likely to drink two or more alcoholic beverages at one sitting every day during a typical week. Regardless of frequency, among all respondents who drank alcohol, 37.5 percent reported having one drink was too dangerous for them to drive, and 40.2 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds indicated they feel it is too dangerous to drive after only one drink. Approximately one-half of all individuals interviewed indicated the most they could consume was two to three drinks before it became too dangerous to operate a vehicle. Eighteen to 24-year-olds were almost 10 percent more 2-8

31 likely than any other age group to drive within two hours of drinking, and 22.8 percent of the male respondents reported driving within two hours of drinking compared to 10.4 percent of the female respondents. Another state-specific survey which collects information regarding behavior and attitudes towards drinking and driving is the Florida Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). The YRBS is a public school-based, anonymous, random survey of high school students. The survey is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiative and is coordinated by Florida Department of Health (FDOH). The YRBS collects information in odd-numbered years on risk behaviors associated with major causes of morbidity and mortality among youth. One of the six risk behaviors is alcohol and drug use where questions are asked about drinking and driving or riding in a car with a driver who has been drinking. The following tables represent trends in drinking and driving measures collected from the YRBS surveys. In 2009, 27.6 percent of the Florida high school students surveyed rode in a vehicle one or more times in the past 30 days with a driver who had been drinking alcohol. Females were more likely to ride with a driver who had been drinking than males (29.2 percent versus 26.3 percent), and non-hispanic whites were more likely to ride with a driver who had been drinking than non-hispanic Blacks (29.0 percent versus 22.2 percent). The likelihood of a student riding in a vehicle with a driver who had been drinking increases with grade level. The good news is that this behavior has trended downward among all grades, and significantly so for grades 10 to 12, from 2001 through Table 2.5 displays the percentage of Florida public high school students between 2001 and 2009 who reported riding in a car or other vehicle one or more times during the past 30 days in which the driver had been drinking alcohol. 2-9

32 Table 2.5 Rode in Vehicle with Driver Who Had Been Drinking in Past 30 Days 2001 to Gender Female 30.3% 31.2% 27.5% 30.1% 29.2% Male 32.5% 29.6% 26.5% 26.4% 26.3% Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 34.1% 32.0% 28.2% 29.9% 29.0% Non-Hispanic Black 25.8% 28.4% 24.1% 23.4% 22.2% Hispanic 30.5% 28.7% 26.8% 29.7% 30.3% Other 37.4% 33.7% 32.6% 23.4% Grade 9 th 29.6% 28.5% 27.3% 28.9% 27.9% 10 th 30.4% 30.2% 28.0% 27.7% 28.7% 11 th 33.6% 31.6% 24.6% 27.1% 26.4% 12 th 35.3% 33.2% 28.6% 28.5% 27.0% Total 31.5% 30.4% 27.2% 28.2% 27.6% Source: Florida Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Changes and Trends from 2001 to Note: Florida Youth Risk Behavior Survey is a CDC initiative coordinated by FDOH. Table 2.6 depicts the percentage of Florida public high school students who drove a car or other vehicle one or more times during the past 30 days when they had been drinking alcohol (this question was not asked in 2009). As reported in 2007, males are more likely than females to operate a vehicle after drinking alcohol (11.2 percent versus 8.8 percent), and non-hispanic Whites and Hispanics were more likely to exhibit this behavior than non-hispanic Blacks (11.4 and 11.2 percent versus 5.7 percent). Of significance are the decreases in drinking/ driving behavior occurring among the 11 th and 12 th grade levels (from 16.1 and 23.6 percent respectively in 2001 to 11.3 and 16.4 percent in 2007). 2-10

33 Table 2.6 Operated Vehicle When Drinking Alcohol in Past 30 Days 2001 to Gender Female 10.6% 8.7% 9.0% 8.8% Male 14.9% 13.8% 11.1% 11.2% Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 14.9% 14.8% 11.6% 11.4% Non-Hispanic Black 7.0% 5.9% 6.9% 5.7% Hispanic 13.9% 8.3% 9.4% 11.2% Other 19.7% 12.3% 17.8% n/a Grade 9 th 8.4% 6.3% 6.9% 6.0% 10 th 8.6% 9.4% 8.2% 7.8% 11 th 16.1% 13.9% 9.9% 11.3% 12 th 23.6% 19.8% 18.1% 16.4% Total 12.9% 11.3% 10.2% 10.0% Source: Florida Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Changes and Trends from 2001 to Note: In 2009, the question about driving and drinking was not asked in the survey. 2-11

34

35 3.0 Purpose of the Strategic Plan 3.1 MISSION AND GOAL The Florida Impaired Driving Strategic Plan (IDSP) reflects the input and direction provided by the Florida Impaired Driving Coalition (FIDC) and is based on the following mission statement developed by the members: Mission Statement: The State of Florida will work collaboratively to maximize its resources to eliminate impaired driving. Florida has realized great gains in reducing the frequency and severity of impaired driving crashes. The FIDC recognizes continued vigilance is needed to reduce these devastating and preventable crashes that injure and kill Floridian families, friends, neighbors, and visitors to the State. The FIDC set the following overall goal for impaired driving crashes: Overall Goal: Reduce the number of impaired driving fatalities and serious injuries by 15 percent by The FIDC will use 2009 data as the baseline to measure progress in implementing the IDSP. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN The development of the IDSP spanned a nine-month period between April 2010 and December This section describes the key activities that precipitated the IDSP and led to its creation. Impaired Driving Assessment The Florida Department of Transportation s (FDOT) Safety Office requested a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) technical assessment of Florida s alcohol- and drug-impaired driving countermeasures program in NHTSA s program assessment process allows a state to use highway safety funds to support an evaluation of existing and proposed alcohol and other drug-impaired driving control efforts by a select team of outside experts. The Florida Impaired Driving Assessment was conducted in Tallahassee in June 15-20, One of the priority recommendations from the assessment was the development of a strategic plan. The recommendation specifically stated Florida should Develop and implement a comprehensive strategic plan specifically for 3-1

36 impaired driving with well-defined, short- and long-range impaired driving target goals for all areas of an impaired driving program, including, but not limited to, targeted reductions in impaired driving crashes, injuries, and fatalities; average BAC; DUI arrests and convictions; and underage involvement in DUI crashes. Florida Impaired Driving Coalition FDOT facilitated the establishment of the FIDC; with members reflecting the many components of the State s impaired driving system. FIDC members fully understand the impact of impaired driving and are able to identify and prioritize the issues which need to be addressed. The FIDC was formed to identify the State s most pressing alcohol-impaired driving issues; develop a strategic plan to provide a comprehensive blueprint for legislation, programs, and funding strategies to reduce alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and fatalities; and oversee implementation of the strategic plan following its adoption. In drafting the IDSP, members of the FIDC relied on impaired driving-related crashes, arrests, suspensions, and convictions data; state-specific studies on youth and adult behavior and attitudes toward alcohol consumption and impaired driving; and presentations by practitioners on the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) program, the administrative hearing process, Florida s Ignition Interlock Device (IID) Program, blood extraction warrants in DUI cases in Duval County, and the Driver Vehicle and Information Database (DAVID). Additionally, an Administrative Process Task Force was formed to study Florida s administrative review process, practices in other states, and relevant literature. Task Force members considered what could be done in the short term without changing the current system and provided four recommendations which are reflected in the IDSP. 3.3 COALITION MEMBERS To create a strategic plan that would focus on the problem areas with the greatest opportunity for improvement, and establish a successful coalition, it was essential to have representation from agencies and organizations with a working knowledge and deep understanding of the various parts of Florida s impaired driving system and how the parts interrelate. The individuals who participated in three or more FIDC meetings and drafted the IDSP are identified in Table 3.1. Individuals who supported the FIDC s efforts and attended two or fewer meetings are identified in Table 3.2. Coalition organizers are deeply grateful for the time and effort members devoted to development of the strategic plan and for the counsel, advice, and expertise they bring to the entire process. 3-2

37 Table 3.1 Florida Impaired Driving Coalition Core Members Organization Name Title Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Mike Fraher Lieutenant Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Barbara Lauer* Bureau Chief Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Eileen Bishop Program Manager Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Kathy Jimenez-Morales Bureau Chief DUI Counterattack, Hillsborough, Inc. Helen Justice Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement/ATP Laura Barfield Alcohol Testing Program Manager Florida Department of Transportation Marianne Trussell Chief Safety Officer Florida Department of Transportation Pete Cohen Program Coordinator Florida Department of Transportation Randall Smith Highway Safety Administrator Florida Highway Patrol Ernesto Duarte Deputy Director Florida Law Enforcement Liaison Program Charles Kane Law Enforcement Liaison, Southeast Region Florida Office of Drug Control Senta Goudy* Chief of Prevention Florida Public Safety Institute James Murdaugh* Executive Director Florida Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Program Sharon Traxler Program Coordinator Lee County Sheriff s Office James Drzymala Lieutenant, Traffic Unit Commander Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Florida Todd Rosenbaum Executive Director Senior Trial Court Judge State of Florida Karl Grube Judge State Attorney s Office, Second Judicial Circuit Eric Abrahamsen* Assistant State Attorney, Traffic and Misdemeanor Division Chief Tallahassee Community College/SADD Florida Danielle Branciforte Program Coordinator Tallahassee Police Department Dennis M. Jones Chief of Police Williston Police Department Daniel Davis* Chief of Police Note: Above members attended three or more meetings (current as of 2/23/2011). * Individuals are no longer in their stated position. 3-3

38 Table 3.2 Florida Impaired Driving Coalition Supporting Members Organization Name Title Department of Health Kyla Shelton Injury Epidemiologist Department of Health Lisa VanderWerf-Hourigan Director, Office of Injury Prevention Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Anne Rollyson Operations Management Consultant II Department of Law Enforcement Ann Marie Johnson Assistant General Counsel, Alcohol Testing Program Educational Foundation and Business Development Drew McLeod Vice President Florida Office of Drug Control Jeff Cecee Program Analyst Florida Public Safety Institute E.E. Eunice Executive Director Florida Sheriff s Association Tim Cannon Assistant Executive Director Fort Myers Police Department Doug Baker Chief of Police Leon County Probation Division Wanda Hunter Director of Probation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Sandy Richardson Regional Program Manager Office of the Public Defender Lacey Kantor Assistant Public Defender State Attorney s Office, Second Judicial Circuit Jeremy Mutz Special DUI Prosecutor Note: Above members attended two or fewer meetings (current as of 2/23/2011). 3-4

39 4.0 Strategic Plan At the beginning of the process, the Florida Impaired Driving Coalition (FIDC) determined its strategic plan should have goals that reflect the various aspects of impaired driving, including the following: Enforcement; Prosecution and Adjudication; Administrative Process; Prevention, Public Education, and Training; Treatment; Data Collection and Analysis; and Legislation. Following is a description of the measurable objectives, performance measures, strategies, and action steps for Florida s Impaired Driving Strategic Plan (IDSP). For more details on the strategies and action steps, see the implementation plan. 4.1 GOAL 1: IMPROVE DUI ENFORCEMENT Objective 1.1 Increase the number of officers trained in approved National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), or Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) advanced DUI enforcement courses by 10 percent annually. Performance Measure: The number of officers trained by course type Measurement Method: Florida Public Safety Institute (FPSI) quarterly reports and FDLE reports, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Safety Office quarterly DRE reports Strategy Encourage agencies to develop DUI specialists who become mentors to assist new officers with the procedures involved in a DUI arrest and prosecution. 4-1

40 AS a 1 AS b Develop a certification program to raise the level of experience and expertise in DUI. FDLE, FPSI Budget: Develop process to increase communication among Assistant State Attorneys and law enforcement to improve the DUI process. Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor (TSRP) and Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) Short Strategy Examine data to determine the level of participation and interest in Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training. AS a AS b Poll regional training centers to determine course offerings and availability. FPSI, LELs Short Poll agencies at the local level to determine the level of interest in training, type of courses needed, and number of officers needing training. FPSI, LELs Short Strategy Examine opportunities for regional training. AS a Conduct regional training at least once a year in Central and South Florida. FPSI, FDOT Safety Office 1 AS is the abbreviation for Action Step. 4-2

41 AS b Conduct DUI instructor class for qualified personnel in various regions once a year. FPSI, FDOT Safety Office Objective 1.2 Increase by 25 percent the number of specialized DUI law enforcement units by December Performance Measure: Number of specialized DUI law enforcement units Measurement Method: LEL survey and report Strategy Increase the number of agencies with a policy or strategic plan indicating DUI enforcement and assistance with prosecution is a priority. AS a AS b Work with Sheriff s Association and Police Chiefs Association to promote the inclusion of DUI strategies in agency strategic plans. FDLE Use the DUI Challenge to promote DUI strategies in agency plans. LELs, FDOT Safety Office Short Strategy Educate law enforcement agencies on cost-effective ways to create a DUI specialized unit. AS a AS b Provide examples of the various types of units; i.e., full-time, parttime, one person, or multiple people. FIDC Short Educate and utilize new approaches to DUI enforcement; e.g., Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS). FDOT Safety Office; NHTSA 4-3

42 Objective 1.3 Reduce to three hours or less the average time it takes an arresting officer to complete the DUI arrest process, including on-scene and paperwork by December Performance Measure: Average Time from out-of-service to in-service (agency reports) Measurement Method: FHP records, ATP (Alcohol Testing Program) data on time of arrest to time of end of test Strategy Survey agencies, pull records, and conduct an analysis on the average time from stop to back in service. AS a AS b Prepare survey instrument to be sent to all law enforcement agencies to obtain reasons for times exceeding three hours. LEL Program, Florida Highway Patrol Short Analyze agency responses and create report detailing the survey findings. LEL Program Short Strategy Increase the use of standardized data templates for probable cause affidavit and alcohol influence reports by law enforcement officers. AS a AS b AS c Revise existing probable cause and alcohol affidavit forms. FDLE, TSRP, State Attorney s Office 2 nd Judicial Circuit Short Revise the existing administrative rule to require the use of the data templates. FDLE, TSRP, FDOT Safety Office Implement the use of standardized data templates through training, presentations, conferences, etc. Statewide training academies, FHP Academy / 4-4