Drink Driver Rehabilitation and Education in Victoria

Transcription

1 Drink Driver Rehabilitation and Education in Victoria April 2005 Research report 05/01

2 Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) Ltd RETRIEVAL INFORMATION Report No. Date ISBN Pages PP 05/01 April Title Drink driver rehabilitation and education in Victoria Authors Mary Sheehan, Barry Watson, Cynthia Schonfeld, Angela Wallace, Bradley Partridge Performing Organisation Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland (CARRS-Q) Queensland University of Technology Beams Road Carseldine Qld 4034 Abstract RACV commissioned CARRS-Q to undertake a review of the current Victorian drink driver offender program as part of RACV s Road Safety Research Fund. The aim of this research was to: Determine what best practice drink drive rehabilitation is and compare this to what is currently delivered in Victoria. Obtain feedback from stakeholders and service providers on their perceptions of the effectiveness of the current Victorian program. An extensive literature review was completed, with interviews and focus groups undertaken with service administrators, service providers and magistrates. Despite the Victorian system s comprehensive approach to drink driving, this examination found that there were a number of areas where the program could be improved. Issues discussed in the report include: the general status of the program; legislation, penalties and the judicial process; monitoring, tracking and mentoring; the content of the education course; the assessment and reporting process; referral and treatment issues; the licensing restoration process and unlicensed driving; alcohol ignition interlocks and other sanctions and finally research priorities and developmental opportunities. Based on these responses and the findings from a review of relevant international literature a comprehensive range of recommendations in relation to these themes are provided. Keywords Drink driving, road user rehabilitation, Victoria, legislation, offender, recidivist, penalty, unlicensed driver, education, monitoring, ignition interlock, evaluation Disclaimer The research presented in this Report has been funded by RACV and is released in the public interest. The views expressed and recommendations made are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect RACV policy. Although the Report is believed to be correct at the time of publication, RACV, to the extent lawful, excludes all liability for loss (whether arising under contract, tort, statute or otherwise) arising from the contents of the Report or from its use. Where such liability cannot be excluded, it is reduced to the full extent lawful. Discretion and judgement should be applied when using or applying any of the information contained within the Report. REPRODUCTION OF THIS PAGE IS AUTHORISED RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary v 1. Introduction 1 2. Summary of Literature Review Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Best Practice Characteristics of Effective Rehabilitation Programs Enhancing the Management of Offenders Further Research and Evaluation Types of Offenders Penalty and Pre-requisite for Re-licensing Mandatory and Voluntary Programs Content of the Program Equity of Access, Cultural Relevance and Quality Control Alcohol Ignition Interlocks and Other Electronic Devices 8 3. The Victorian Drink Driver Education Program Background Overview Rationale Legislation Description Overview of the Program Accreditation Education Courses Assessment, Referral and Treatment Fees Re-Licensing Evaluation Policies and Practices in Other States and Territories Australian Capital Territory New South Wales Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Western Australia Offenders in Prison 20 DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA i

4 5. Methodology Introduction Participants Service Administrators Magistrates Program Providers Interviews and Questionnaires Service Administrators Magistrates Service Providers Procedure Service Administrators Magistrates Service Providers Ethical Approval Victorian Stakeholder Perceptions General Status of Victorian Drink Drive Program Overview Stakeholder Comments Priority Issues Legislation, Penalties and Judicial Processes Overview Stakeholder Comments Priority Issues Monitoring, Tracking and Mentoring Overview Stakeholder Comments Priority Issues Education Course Overview Stakeholder Comments Priority Issues Assessments and Reporting Process Overview Stakeholder Comments Priority Issues Referral and Treatment Overview Stakeholder Comments Priority Issues Licence Restoration Process and Unlicensed Driving Overview Stakeholder Comments Priority Issues 36 ii RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

5 6.8 Alcohol Ignition Interlocks and Other Sanctions Overview Stakeholder Comments Priority Issues Research Priorities and Development Opportunities Overview Stakeholder Comments Priority Issues Discussion and Recommendations General Status of Victorian Drink Drive Program Legislation, Penalties and Judicial Processes Monitoring, Tracking and Mentoring Education Course Assessments and Reporting Process Referral and Treatment Licence Restoration Process and Unlicensed Driving Alcohol Ignition Interlocks Research Priorities and Development Opportunities 48 References 49 Appendices 54 DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA iii

6 Abbreviations BAC CBT CCO DHS DWI FORS LFT Blood Alcohol Concentration Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Community Correctional Officer Department of Human Services Driving While Intoxicated Federal Office of Road Safety Liver Function Test MUARC Monash University Accident Research Centre NESB RACV RBT RCM RTA TAC TIN TOP UTL VDDEP VADDS VP Non-English Speaking Background Royal Automobile Club of Victoria Random Breath Testing Regional Coordinating Magistrate Road Traffic Authority Transport Accident Commission Traffic Infringement Notice Traffic Offender Programs Under the Limit Victorian Drink Driver Education Program Victorian Association of Drink Driver Services Victoria Police iv RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Significant reductions in drink driving have been achieved in Victoria in recent years, but drink driving remains a major economic, social, and public health problem. In 2002, 31 per cent of all drivers and riders killed in Victoria had a BAC of 0.05 or more and 2001 figures indicate that repeat drink driving offenders were responsible for 22 fatalities and 560 serious injuries. Such crashes cost the Victorian community approximately $81 million each year. RACV commissioned CARRS-Q to undertake a review of the current Victorian drink driver offender program as part of RACV s Road Safety Research Fund. The aim of this research was to: Determine what best practice drink drive rehabilitation is and compare this to what is currently delivered in Victoria. Obtain feedback from stakeholders and service providers on their perceptions of the effectiveness of the current Victorian program. In addition to an extensive literature review, interviews and focus groups were undertaken with service administrators, service providers and magistrates. Twenty-seven senior service administrators working in the field of drink driving, or who had extensive experience in associated areas were interviewed in July/August Twenty magistrates from six regions in Victoria also participated in an interview or focus group and all drink drive program agencies were surveyed by mail, with 14 responses received. The current Victorian drink driving program largely focuses on measures that offenders need to undertake as part of the re-licensing process. Accredited drink driving agencies provide an 8 hour education program that some offenders are required to attend prior to re-licensing. Recidivists and those convicted with high BAC levels are also required to attend one or more assessments to determine the nature of their alcohol problems prior to attending the education program, and many are also required to have an alcohol interlock fitted to their vehicles as a condition of re-licensing. Key findings Despite the Victorian system s comprehensive approach to drink driving, this examination found that there were a number of areas where the program could be improved. International research has shown that community drink driving programs for recidivist drivers need to be integrated and target both traffic and health-related outcomes. The most effective rehabilitation programs incorporate a combination of intervention modes including education/information, lifestyle change strategies, and probationary contact and supervision. The current Victorian drink driver education program does not include all of these elements. The focus of the Victorian program is not rehabilitation for high risk offenders, but focuses on assessment and education, not treatment. Solely focusing on education and assessment does not reflect current best practice drink driving rehabilitation. The current education and assessment process is a judicial requirement prior to re-licensing, and is not part of the penalty system. This system relies on offenders wanting to re-licence. This is not an effective mechanism for encouraging treatment and rehabilitation of offenders and could potentially discourage suspended drivers from getting re-licensed. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA v

8 The current interlock program relies on high risk offenders wanting to get re-licensed after serving their suspension period, and may in fact be a disincentive for re-licensing. With no current monitoring of offenders through the suspension period, effectiveness of the program is difficult to determine, as are the re-licensing rates. There appears to be little communication between the agencies associated with the drink driver offender program and no clear leadership in ensuring that the program meets best practice and is effective in addressing addiction issues for high risk offenders. Recommendations In order to reduce the level of drink driving recidivism, CARRS-Q recommends that the Victorian Government should commission a detailed independent evaluation of the current drink driving system, and consider implementing the following improvements: Accountability for overseeing the program should be clearly allocated to one Government Department. A pre-conviction assessment should be completed and drivers with alcohol addiction problems should be directed at this early stage to rehabilitation programs. This should be a requirement for all offenders rather than being part of the re-licensing process for those who chose to get re-licensed. The benefits of the alcohol interlock program would be greater if involvement in the program also involved ongoing rehabilitation. The requirement that offenders must serve their full suspension period before participating in the interlock program needs to be reviewed. Allowing offenders to reduce the length of the suspension period if they participate in the program needs to be seriously considered in light of the research on best practice interlock programs. A system for monitoring offenders is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the current system. More specific recommendations and stakeholder views on the effectiveness of the Victorian drink driver offender program are including in the full report. vi RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

9 1. Introduction The research team from The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q) completed an extensive critical review of the literature on drink driving rehabilitation for RACV in August It focused on both process and outcome issues including: the relative effectiveness of judicial and administrative models; the characteristics of effective rehabilitation programs; strategies for integrating rehabilitation with other drink driving sanctions; the relevance of treatment models for alcohol dependency; the overall cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation; and the role of rehabilitation programs in encouraging re-licensing. Particular focus was placed on the integrated use of a range of drink driving management processes including licence actions, rehabilitation and alcohol ignition interlocks. This second report follows up the first with specific application to Victoria by examining the following issues: findings from the first critical literature review an in-depth review of drink driving rehabilitation policies and practices in Victoria in relation to other Australian jurisdictions a summary of evaluations of drink driving programs in Victoria findings from interviews with Victorian magistrates and key service administrators in the community corrections, police, transport, justice and health sectors findings from survey questionnaires with service providers (drink drive agencies) a comprehensive discussion with recommendations for improved practice based on the findings of the first report and the Victorian data. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 1

10 2. Summary of Literature Review This section provides a brief summary of relevant findings from a literature review of drink driving rehabilitation programs. 2.1 Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Drink driving rehabilitation is a broad term that is used to describe a variety of programs for offenders that aim to reduce recidivism (Ferguson, Schonfeld, Sheehan, & Siskind, 2001). The core models of rehabilitation for drink driving offenders currently involve either treatment of alcohol problems (psychotherapy/counselling based programs) or provision of knowledge (education-based programs), or a combination of both. Drink driving rehabilitation and treatment programs constitute a secondary form of prevention, attempting to treat drink driving offenders alcohol problems and thus change their behaviour. The primary aim of these programs has generally been accepted to be the process of separating drinking from driving by providing offenders with the knowledge, skills and strategies to avoid further drink driving behaviour (Popkin, 1994; Wells-Parker, 1994). A secondary aim has often been to reduce drinking levels by increasing offenders awareness of the seriousness of excessive alcohol consumption (Wells-Parker, 1994). Although rehabilitation programs for drink driving offenders have existed for some time, it has only been in the past decade that a consensus has emerged regarding the effectiveness of these programs in changing offenders drink driving behaviours, enhancing traffic safety, or alleviating alcohol problems in at-risk populations. This evidence suggests that drink driving treatment programs can be effective in offender rehabilitation and the use of programs should be included in policy decisions about future directions in the control of drink driving. The average effect of remediation on drink driving recidivism has been found to be a 7-9% reduction over no remediation with a similar effect size being found for alcohol involved crashes (e.g. Wells-Parker, Bangert-Downs, McMillen, & Williams, 1995). Combination programs (including education, psychotherapy/ counselling and follow-up contact/probation) have been found to be more effective than other evaluated modes for reducing drink driving recidivism. Studies conducted in the U.S. indicate that alcohol treatment/rehabilitation in conjunction with licence restriction remains the most effective sanction in reducing drink driving recidivism, while licence suspension remains the most effective sanction in terms of overall crash reduction. The period since 1990 has seen a growth in combination programs that provide education and psychotherapy/counselling. Such programs may use group education sessions to increase knowledge about the harmful outcomes of drink driving, while providing an offender with face-to-face psychotherapy/counselling to deal with the offender s drinking problem (DeYoung, 1997; Wells-Parker et al., 1995). Little research has been conducted examining the effectiveness of combination programs, although recidivism analyses from Wells-Parker et al s (1995) meta-analysis of drink driving interventions indicates that some combination of modalities, in particular those including education, psychotherapy / counselling and some follow-up, such as contact probation, showed larger effect sizes than other modes. The Under the Limit (UTL) drink driving rehabilitation program which was developed and initially implemented as part of a wider community intervention in the Central Queensland Region in 1993 is available through Magistrates courts in Queensland and delivered through the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) system. The initial design of this program recognised the growing belief that drink driving was an indicator of alcohol dependency and incorporated elements of best practice models of treatment for alcohol dependency in its design (Ferguson, Sheehan, Davey, & Worbon, 1999). This program uses a combined approach with group sessions based on cognitive behaviour therapy as the treatment mode. Evaluation suggests that it is effective in reducing recidivism in those multiple offenders who complete the program. 2 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

11 Motivation may be a particularly salient factor in the treatment of drink driving offenders and in general motivated people enter and participate in alcohol treatment at higher rates than do less motivated people (DiClemente, Bellino, & Neavins, 1999). Many people enter rehabilitation under judicial coercion and they may not be ready to change their drinking behaviour at the point of entry to the program. Therefore, understanding how to handle unmotivated or reluctant people entering rehabilitation and ensuring they actively participate in treatment is necessary for the optimal success of programs. Traditional approaches to treating unmotivated people have often used aggressive and confrontational strategies in response to the person s denial (Miller & Rollnick, 1991), while more recent evidence suggests that this approach fosters denial and resistance in the drinker (Miller, Benefield, & Tonigan, 1993). Although there is a strong rationale for the assessment, treatment and rehabilitation of drinkdrivers, the cost-effectiveness of these approaches remains unclear (Sheehan, 1994). 2.2 Best Practice Characteristics of Effective Rehabilitation Programs The literature review found support for the following best practice characteristics of rehabilitation programs: Programs are most effective in reducing recidivism when they are combined with licence disqualification periods. The evidence that rehabilitation programs are most effective in reducing recidivism when they are combined with licence disqualification periods is overwhelming (DeYoung, 1997; Mann et al., 1994; Popkin, Stewart, Martell, & Birckmayer, 1992; McKnight & Voas, 1991; Green, French, Haberman, & Holland, 1991; Sadler, Perrine, & Peck, 1991; Fell, 1990; Nichols & Ross, 1990; Sanson-Fisher, Redman, Homel, & Key, 1990). Improving psychosocial functioning has been found to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. Macdonald and Dooley (1993) using a matched sample of offenders and non-offenders reported that offenders were more likely to believe that some people drive better after drinking, that it takes more alcohol to be legally impaired and that there is an excuse for drink driving. They suggest that convicted drink drivers have poor knowledge and attitudes toward this behaviour and interventions aimed at the drinking driver should focus on varying these characteristics in order to reduce drink driving recidivism (Macdonald & Dooley, 1993). The most effective rehabilitation programs incorporate a combination of intervention modes including education/information, lifestyle change strategies and probationary contact and supervision. Wells-Parker et al. s (1995) meta-analysis indicates that drink driving program evaluations that have focused on lifestyle measures have shown an overall positive effect on knowledge and attitudes toward drink driving behaviours. In recent years, there has been a shift away from a focus on lifestyle and attitudinal factors to drink driving recidivism and crash rates as measures of program effectiveness. Evaluation processes that examine the potential benefits of drink driving programs on lifestyle measures as well as recidivism and crash rates would be optimal. Small group size (n = 8-10) is an important consideration to optimize success and fully engage adults in programs. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) techniques and strategies provide the most effective process treatment for alcohol problems. Brief Interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol consumption by heavy drinkers as well as being inexpensive and should be included in rehabilitation programs. 2.3 Enhancing the Management of Offenders Drink driving offenders are a heterogeneous group so the most effective approach to the problem would be one that uses a multi-strategy method approach. These include the integration of rehabilitation, with legal and vehicle sanctions, as well as population-based approaches such as DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 3

12 media campaigns. Evaluating the effectiveness of such countermeasures is fraught with difficulty, as it is subject to a number of methodological limitations. The success of any particular intervention is highly dependent upon the outcome measure utilised. Licence disqualification is the most common sanction used in the punishment of drink driving offenders in Australia, as it is widely regarded as a just and appropriate penalty for drink driving (Ross, 1991; Williams, Weinberg, & Fields, 1991; Smith & Maisey, 1990). However it cannot prevent an offender from driving as a result of their drink driving offence. This limits the ability of licence sanctions to act as a specific deterrent (DeYoung, 1999; Marques, Voas, & Hodgins, 1998; Ward, 2000; Watson 2002; Watson, 2003). Offenders learn through disqualified driving that holding a drivers licence is not essential in transportation so long as care is taken with the amount of driving, nature of driving and location (Ross, 1991). Consequently, unlicensed driving has the potential to damage any benefits that may be gained through the use of licence sanctions as a drink driving countermeasure. Despite the difficulty in monitoring and controlling unlicensed driving, recent evidence suggests that licence disqualification can also impact on alcohol-related incidences. A study conducted in Queensland indicated that the use of licence suspension was associated with a two-thirds reduction in both crashes and drink driving recidivism (Siskind, 1996). Licence disqualification has also shown to improve overall road safety by reducing the general level of traffic violations and crashes (DeYoung, 1997; Mann, Vingilis, Gavin, Adl af, & Anglin, 1991; McKnight & Voas, 1991; Nichols & Ross, 1990; Peck, 1991; Vingilis & Coultes, 1990). A large volume of literature has demonstrated that licence disqualification is an extremely effective method for reducing further drink driving (Jones & Lacey, 1991; McArthur & Kraus, 1999; Nichols & Ross, 1990; Vingilis et al., 1990). Numerous studies with a variety of methodologies have indicated that this sanction, at least in the short term, is more effective in preventing drink driving recidivism than other forms of punishment or remedial education programs unaccompanied by withdrawal of driving rights (Mann et al., 1991; Peck, 1991; McKnight & Voas, 1991). An efficient system in imposing and enforcing licence sanctions requires: (a) prompt and certain suspension of licence; (b) better updated traffic records to provide magistrates with a more complete offender history prior to sentencing; (c) recognition and promotion of driving while disqualified as a serious offence; and (d) the use of treatment in addition to licence sanctions (Transportation Research Board, 1995). Vehicle impoundment is a less common management measure. This is because this type of control measure is problematic due to legal issues with confiscation, storage problems (eg. costs), and cars being shared with persons other than the offender (Stewart, 1995; Weinrath, 1997). With drink driving having gained great attention over the past two decades, a wide variety of countermeasures exist. These strategies are generally divided into two groups depending on the primary target: general interventions and specific interventions. General intervention strategies target the community in which the socially unacceptable behaviour is occurring (random breath testing and media campaigns), while specific intervention strategies target the convicted offender with the aim of reducing their potential to re-offend (licence sanctions and alcohol ignition interlock devices) (Ferguson et al., 1999). 2.4 Further Research and Evaluation The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to drink driving rehabilitation needs to be examined. An adequate cost analysis needs to include issues such as the estimated loss of productivity due to injury or death, property damage, medical, legal, employer, prison and funeral costs, as well as costs to police and emergency services. The overall economic impact on the family and community should also be considered as well as the social and economic benefits in reducing crashes. 4 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

13 Selection of participants needs further research. Ethical and equity considerations dictate that programs should be made available to all drink driving offenders with these constraints often making systematic controlled evaluation of programs complicated. Motivation to change appears to be a critical factor and understanding how to handle unmotivated or reluctant offenders entering rehabilitation programs under judicial coercion, is essential to the success of programs. Voluntary participation in rehabilitation suggests that control groups used in evaluations will comprise those offenders who have chosen not to participate which may severely affect the comparability of study groups (Weinrath, 1997). This constraint has particular relevance in our evaluation of the Victorian model in which participants in rehabilitation programs are directly motivated to achieve relicensing. Many evaluations of programs fail to include a comparison or control group (Hall, 1997). Ethics and equity advocates argue that denying rehabilitation to those people who may benefit greatly from it, should not be sacrificed for research reasons. Quality control of drink driving rehabilitation programs is of utmost importance but is mostly ignored in program evaluation. It is astounding that there are currently no guidelines for quality control in drink driving rehabilitation programs. The issue of outcome measures needs much more thorough investigation. It has been suggested that multiple measures should be used so that the strengths of one counteract the deficiencies of other measures while adding a new element to the measurement of the construct. Because of the number and variety of drink driving rehabilitation programs available, screening and assessment often become a part of the drink driving control system (Wells-Parker & Popkin, 1994). However, since alcohol problems and drink driving are complex behaviours, any screening or assessment procedure must be able to reliably measure the complexity and multidimensionality of these behaviours (Institute of Medicine, 1990). The goal of screening is to identify individuals who are at risk of developing alcohol-related problems. Screening is important given that with appropriate support and help, people who are not alcohol dependent may reduce or stop their consumption (Holmwood, 2002). Once alcohol dependence has developed, cessation or changes to consumption are much more difficult and usually require specialised treatment (Commonwealth Department of Veterans Affairs, 2002). Often, hazardous drinking is undetected and many people may present to a primary care setting with signs and symptoms that would not necessarily be related to their drinking. Therefore, screening maybe is a simple way to identify people whose drinking may pose a risk to their health or that of others, as well as those who are already experiencing alcohol dependence. Screening and assessment techniques are often used in association with drink driving rehabilitation programs to aid in better matching strategies to the needs of the individual offender. Screening is defined as a process that differentiates people who have, or are at risk of having, a medical condition from those who do not (Babor & Higgins-Biddle, 2000, p678). Wells-Parker et al. (1995) suggested that two essential criteria for the effective use of screening techniques are firstly, that the techniques can predict potential risk (e.g. risk of recidivism) and secondly, that the techniques can identify appropriate cut points to define risk groups. However, the difficulty in determining the degree of alcohol dependency, particularly where it involves self reported behaviour, has long been recognized as a serious problem when assessing drink driving offenders prior to licence reapplication (Conigrave & Carseldine, 1996). Nonetheless, a number of rehabilitation programs for drink driving have involved the initial screening of offenders. Most evaluations focus on reduction of recidivism or time to subsequent offence as measures of program effectiveness. There are however, limitations in using recidivist rates in determining program effectiveness. Probably the most notable empirical support for not using recidivism as the main outcome measure is illustrated in Wells-Parker et al s (1995) meta-analysis. According to results from this meta-analysis, recidivism effect size was found to increase in magnitude and variation with poorer methodological quality. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 5

14 The issue of drink driving as a social problem has been addressed by only a few evaluations. Hedlund (1995) suggested that while this is an important traffic safety outcome, it does not address the changes in the health, lifestyle and alcohol-related problems that may be a significant correlate of reduced drink driving. Since drink driving offenders generally have many social and personal problems (Hedlund, 1995; Isaac, 1995), the omission of measuring changes in lifestyle factors of offenders is noteworthy. Measuring changes in lifestyle factors may be a more sensitive and reliable measure of the effects of drink driving rehabilitation programs (Hall, 1997; Sheehan, Schonfeld, & Davey, 1995). It is recommended that a more holistic approach to the evaluation of drink driving programs is needed to guide the development of empirically-based models of drink driving rehabilitation (Fitzpatrick, 1992). This means that multiple measures should be used so that they counteract the deficiencies of other measures while adding a new element to the measurement of the construct (Fitzpatrick, 1992). What does emerge from the earlier review is that the control and management of drink driving through rehabilitation is a complex issue. It requires more complex and systematic approaches than have as yet been realised in Australian jurisdictions. There are a number of core issues that need to be taken into account in any attempt to develop model policy or programs in the area. These are discussed below and underlie the directions of this second report. 2.5 Types of Offenders Types and models for rehabilitation should be linked to the types of offender. They can be usefully categorised in terms of the level or degree of offending, that is first, second or more frequent offender and the extent to which the offender has an associated alcohol dependency. BAC level at the time of apprehension is sometimes used as proxy for the latter but this may not be the most valid or reliable measure of likelihood of re-offending. Research aimed at profiling drink drivers has mainly focused on the recidivist drink driver, with greatest effort being given to the predictors of recidivism (Ferguson et al., 1999). The profile of a recidivist drink driver is one that is of great interest to road safety researchers and practitioners alike. Recidivist drink drivers are consistently identified in the research literature as those more likely to be resistant to change and least responsive to legislative changes, harsher penalties and educative strategies for remediation (Hedlund, 1995; Simpson, 1995; Tornros, 1994). Although recidivists are not a homogenous group, as noted earlier, they have been more likely to be reported as: male; young; single, separated or divorced; unemployed or in a blue collar occupation; with a history of other traffic or criminal offences; personality problems such as anti-social attitudes and poor impulse control (Bailey & Bailey, 2000; Beck, Rauch, & Baker, 1997; Moloney & Palaia, 1997; Ryan, Ferrante, Loh, & Cercarelli, 1996; Wilson, 1996). A third important but relatively under-investigated way in which offenders may vary is whether they were driving unlicensed at the time of the index offence. The evidence suggests that the unlicensed recidivist offender is most likely to have a serious drink driving problem and to be over represented in serious alcohol related crashes. Unlicensed drivers have been reported to be twice as likely as licensed drivers to be involved in a serious injury crash (Federal Office of Road Safety: FORS, 1997; Watson, 1997). These findings challenge previous research that suggests unlicensed drivers tend to drive in a relatively safe manner compared with the general driving public in order to avoid detection (Smith & Maisey, 1990; Voas, 2001). Furthermore, crashes involving unlicensed drivers often involve a cluster of high-risk driving behaviours (Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee, 1997). These high risk behaviours include: driving while impaired by alcohol and drugs; motorcycle riding; exceeding the speed limit; and driving at excessive speed for the prevailing conditions (Harrison, 1997; Federal Office of Road Safety: FORS, 1997; Watson, 1997). Alcohol and other drugs were involved in 22.5% of the serious casualty crashes involving unlicensed drivers compared to only 7.5% involvement in serious casualty crashes involving licensed drivers and riders (Watson, 1997). These three issues have particular relevance to the type of rehabilitation program or model of countermeasures that might be recommended and the policy issues that arise if these particular types of offenders are to be systematically managed. 6 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

15 2.6 Penalty and Pre-requisite for Re-licensing There are two models or approaches to the implementation of rehabilitation currently being used in Australia. The first is a penalty approach in which an offender is required as part of the sentencing for the index offence to undertake a rehabilitation program. The second model is that used in Victoria in which rehabilitation is independent of the sentencing system but is an administrative requirement for re-licensing. It is likely that both these models are accessed by different types of offenders and this in turn probably has a direct impact on the measured effectiveness of programs. Laws and enforcement programs have been implemented to increase the certainty, swiftness and severity of punishments for drink driving (Grosvenor, Toomey, & Wagenaar, 1999). Certainty rather than severity of punishment may be the most important deterrent to drinking and driving among the general population (Grosvenor et al., 1999; Ross, 1992b). Legal sanctions consisting of both a period of licence disqualification and monetary fine are the chief sentencing options for drink driving offenders in Australia. Such legal sanctions can act to reform convicted drink driving offenders to be less likely to repeat this behaviour in the future (Ross, 1992; Watson, 1998). The objective of legal sanctions (particularly licence disqualification periods) is to put drink driving offenders out of action by preventing them from committing the offence again, even if they wish to do so (Beirness, Simpson, & Mayhew, 1997; Ross, 1992). Major differences can exist in the way these sanctions are administered, depending on whether the primary objective is to punish, restrain or reform offenders (Watson, 1998). This process of specific deterrence is seen as the primary objective of legal sanctions (Watson, 1998). Specific deterrence is based on changing the behaviours of those drivers who have been identified as drink driving: these drivers behaviours are controlled to some degree by the imposition of a penalty such as loss of licence, fine, rehabilitation or vehicle impoundment (McArthur et al., 1999). 2.7 Mandatory and Voluntary Programs The issue of whether attendance at a rehabilitation program should be mandatory or voluntary may ultimately be linked to research on the treatment and management of alcohol dependency. The literature on this issue is not clear. Emerging research suggests that drink driving rehabilitation programs that enable participants to obtain insight and understanding of the practical and social costs of their drinking and driving as well as of their personal dependency do in fact move participants in their motivation to change their dependency. The issue then may be the need to ensure that persons completing drink driving rehabilitation programs have access to specialised ongoing programs directed towards reducing their dependency. Motivation may be a particularly salient factor in the treatment of drink driving offenders and in general motivated people enter and participate in alcohol treatment at higher rates than do less motivated people (DiClemente et al., 1999). Many people enter rehabilitation under judicial coercion and they may not be ready to change their drinking behaviour at the point of entry to the program. Therefore, understanding how to handle unmotivated or reluctant people entering rehabilitation and ensuring they actively participate in treatment is necessary for the optimal success of programs. Traditional approaches to treating unmotivated people have often used aggressive and confrontational strategies in response to the person s denial (Miller & Rollnick, 1991), while more recent evidence suggests that this approach fosters denial and resistance in the drinker (Miller et al., 1993). Assessment of motivation presents a significant challenge as external influences and pressures, as well as internal thoughts and feelings, contribute to a person s motivation to change (DiClemente et al., 1999). Evaluating a person s motivation to change requires assessment of the person s attitudes and intentions, confidence and commitment, and decision-making ability (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1998). Researchers have attempted to measure change in motivation in numerous ways, including questioning patients about their intentions and plans to change and asking multiple questions reflecting the different stages of change (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1998; Miller & Tonigan, 1996; Rollnick, Heather, Gold, & Hall, 1992) and other researchers have attempted to develop measures of motivation for treatment (DeLeon, Melnick, & Kressel, 1997; Simpson & Joe, 1993). DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 7

16 2.8 Content of the Program There are four identifiable components of currently well evaluated rehabilitation programs. These are not interchangeable and it is arguable from a wide variety of research sources that all are required for successful rehabilitation of the serious recidivist offender. The first component involves education relating to the core issues of alcohol and its impact on the individual and on their driving skills. Education-based programs attempt to assist the drink driver in separating future episodes of drinking from driving and assume that it is a lack of knowledge that led to the drink driving offence. It is important to recognise that education programs are not treatment programs. The theoretical basis on which education programs are developed assumes that individuals drink and drive due to a lack of knowledge that results in poor decisions being made (Popkin, 1994). Education is a necessary but does appear to be a sufficient component of rehabilitation for drink driving as many offenders fail to see that they might have a drinking problem and therefore without insight they do not have the knowledge (or the power) to change their drinking habits (Macdonald & Dooley, 1993). The second essential element is alcohol treatment through lifestyle change and social skill development. Thirdly, effective programs are well run, systematic and conducted by well trained and professional therapists (Heather, 2000). Finally, the classical study by Wells Parker et al., (1995) in this area indicates that rehabilitation outcomes are enhanced by the requirement for offenders to be on probation and by the provision of programs personalised support systems throughout the rehabilitation program. 2.9 Equity of Access, Cultural Relevance and Quality Control Two issues that have emerged in two Australian studies, but remain under investigated in international work, are the need to include processes that ensure equity of access and quality control mechanisms built in to any policy regarding rehabilitation programs. People in prison, who are often the most serious offenders, remain a group that are not specifically targeted by current research programs. However, the international literature suggests that interventions at this point in time are not typically effective. This is an area requiring further research in the Australian context. In Australia, in order to enable rehabilitation to be available to all people, whether they live in metropolitan, rural or remote areas, distance education modes should also be available (Sheehan et al., 1995). To ensure client literacy does not become a problem in the implementation of the program, the program should only have a small component of written work (Sheehan et al., 1995). Catering for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders requires a specific package to be appropriate both in content and language styles for these offenders (Sheehan et al., 1995). Facilitators and program coordinators need adequate training to be competent and aware of factors influencing adult learning to maximise learning outcomes for participants (Newman, DiPietro, Catchpole, Stephenson, & Taylor, 2002) Alcohol Ignition Interlocks and Other Electronic Devices There are a number of vehicle control sanctions that have been trialled internationally and appear to have potential to provide positive effects in terms of drink driving control. However, with the exception of alcohol ignition interlocks their contribution to rehabilitation is untested. The technology of interlocks is developed, and the guidelines for their use are now well clarified. They appear, along with other electronic car devices, to significantly reduce drink driving by offenders whilst they are in place. Comprehensive Canadian research however suggests that optimal results from interlock use require associated rehabilitation and probationary mentoring. An alcohol ignition interlock is designed to prevent the vehicle being started if the driver s blood alcohol concentration exceeds a specific limit. In addition to preventing the vehicle from starting, the 8 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

17 interlock records data on the use of the vehicle and any attempts to evade the interlock, such as roll starting (Victorian Government, 2002). Alcohol ignition interlock programs allow people who have lost their driver s licences through impaired driving convictions to gain conditional driving privileges by using the device. The objective of this program is to modify the behaviours of drivers who have impaired driving convictions. Latest research seems to indicate that interlocks work best when they are combined with probation or treatment such as counselling or medical monitoring (Voas, Marques, Tippetts, & Beirness, 1999; Longest, 1999). A sample of current interlock trials in North America (Maryland and Alberta) and in Europe (Sweden) are combining treatment, rehabilitation and intensive supervision programs with interlock installation with the intention of increasing the likelihood of long-term behavioural change (Beck et al., 1997; Marques et al., 2001). These programs have yet to be comprehensively evaluated, although early indications suggest that the combination of supportive initiatives with interlock programs provide lower rates of failed start-up attempts and post-interlock recidivism (Marques et al., 2001). It is evident that there are many effective road safety countermeasures for drink driving. Recent research, which may reflect the fact that offenders include more hard core recidivist drink drivers in the post RBT era, suggests that rehabilitation programs can be more effective in reducing alcoholrelated offences and possible crashes, than are licence sanctions. This success most probably reflects their ability to more effectively address the factors contributing to drink driving behaviour. Given that drink driving offenders are a heterogeneous group, the most effective approach to the drink driving problem would be one that uses a multi-strategy approach. There is a need to develop and evaluate systems for managing drink driving offenders that support the complementary use of licence actions and rehabilitation programs. This would enable further research into the development of cost effective processes which are designed to match offenders to the most suitable intervention. In the following section a detailed analysis of the Victorian system of managing drink driving offenders is provided. It is followed by a survey of management policies and practices in other states of Australia. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 9

18 3. The Victorian Drink Driver Education Program 3.1 Background Overview Although significant reductions in drink driving have been achieved in Victoria in recent years, drink driving remains a major economic, social and public health problem. The monetary cost to the Victorian community each year for accidents involving recidivist drink driving is approximately $81 million. In 2001, 24 per cent of all drivers and riders killed in Victoria had a BAC of 0.05 or more, with repeat drink driving offenders being responsible for 22 fatalities and 560 injuries each year (VicRoads, 2002). Since the late 1980 s there has been a steep decline in the number of alcohol-related deaths involving drivers and motorcyclists. In 2002, a total of 72 drivers and motorcyclists were killed with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.05 g/100ml and over (TAC, 2003). Over half of these drivers and riders were more than three times over the legal limit (TAC, 2003). Since the introduction of Random Breath Testing (RBT) in Victoria in 1976, but particularly since its re-structuring in 1989, there has been a dramatic reduction in drivers killed over In late 1989, an initiative which involved a substantially different method of RBT enforcement compared with past operations was introduced. Bus-based RBT stations using highly visible Booze Buses largely replaced car-based stations, and a multi-million dollar, statewide anti-drink driving publicity campaign through all mass media, was launched in mid December 1989, and reinforced throughout 1990 and 1991 (Drummond, Sullivan & Cavallo, 1992). Designed to both heighten perceptions of extended enforcement and sensitize the public to the consequences of drink driving, this campaign was the cornerstone of public perceptions of the program (Drummond, Sullivan & Cavallo, 1992). In 1977, 49% of all drivers killed were found to be in excess of 0.05% and in 1992 that figure was reduced to an all time low of 21%. The progressive introduction nationwide, has seen it intensified and refined to be one of the most extensive programs for mass breath testing of drivers worldwide (FORS, 1998). Evaluations conducted by Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) have shown substantial reductions in road trauma in Victoria due to increased RBT using booze buses and the new speed camera program, each supported by the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) advertising (Newstead, Cameron, Gantzer, & Vulcan, 1995). A study of recidivist drink drivers in Victoria indicated that the offender profile is predominantly males, aged between years, whose blood alcohol levels increased with subsequent offences (Moloney & Palaia, 1997). Results from this study suggest that over 30% of these recidivist drink drivers had one or more previous convictions, and almost 11% had two or more previous convictions (Moloney & Palaia, 1997). Many of these characteristics may be linked with serious and long-term alcohol dependency. There are two models or approaches to the implementation of rehabilitation currently being used in Australia. The first is a penalty approach in which an offender is required as part of the sentencing for the index offence to undertake a rehabilitation program. The second model is that is used in Victoria in which rehabilitation is independent of the sentencing system but is an administrative requirement for re-licensing. The Victorian program is managed through the courts and is a compulsory requirement for the subgroup of offenders who wish to have their drivers licence re-instated. Prior to 1990, it was not compulsory for the majority of convicted drink drivers who had their licence disqualified to attend a drink driver education program as a prerequisite for re-licensing (Hennessy, 1998). Alcohol interlock legislation came into effect on 13 th May 2002 in Victoria and the law applies to repeat offenders and some serious first time offenders who commit an offence on or after this date. 10 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

19 Approaches used in the U.S. where most program evaluation has been undertaken, appear to be of the former type though with mandatory application. It is likely that both these models are accessed by different types of offenders and this in turn probably has a direct impact on the measured effectiveness of programs. The Victorian program is most likely to attract those persons who are eligible for re-licensing and motivated to stay in or rejoin the system rather than drive unlicensed. It is also more likely to attract persons who are employed or seeking employment in a position that requires a licence. The current Victorian system which is designed to attract persons who do not want to drive unlicensed, the proactive and self-directed natured of accrual toparticipation in the programs may exacerbate the numbers who elect to drive without ever going through the process of rehabilitation and re-licensing. It leaves unresolved the important issue of the identification and management of those persons who do not complete these programs unresolved Rationale Although significant reductions have been achieved in Victoria in recent years, drink driving remains a major problem. Each year: drink drivers cause approximately 20% of all fatalities recidivist cause approximately 5% of the annual road toll (an average of 22 fatalities) on average 220 road users are seriously injured and an estimated 340 suffer minor injuries as a result of drink driving accidents caused by recidivists (Victorian Government, 2002). In Victoria, drink driving education programs provide a service for a majority of drink drivers who will apply for licence restoration, some of whom do not require a court order for restoration. Prior to 1990, it was not compulsory for the majority of convicted drink drivers who had lost their licence to attend a drink driver education program as a pre-requisite for licence restoration. However, attendance at an education course was compulsory for offenders under the age of 21 and was strongly recommended by court staff to other offenders to enhance their chance of obtaining a licence restoration order by a magistrate to regain their licence. Thus, attending an education program had become well-established in Victoria as a procedure in the licence restoration process for convicted drink drivers. In 1987, the Victorian Parliamentary Social Development Committee recognised the need for an evaluation of the drink driver education courses and held an inquiry into the management of convicted drink drivers in Victoria (Hennessy, 1998). In response to this inquiry, compulsory drink driver program attendance and re-licensing assessments were introduced from 1 st October 1990 for certain convicted drink drivers apprehended with a BAC above the prescribed limit. Since the introduction of the program in 1990, approximately offenders complete education courses and/or assessments each year (Department of Human Services, 1998) Legislation There are a number of different kinds of drink driving offences in the Victorian Road Safety Act Such offences include: driving under the influence [Section 49(1) (a)] driving while exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol [Section 49 (1) (b)] Failing the test offences [Section 49 (1) (f) and (g)] refusing to provide a breath or blood sample or to stop at a Random Breath Test (RBT) station [Section 49(1) (c), (d) and (e)] (VicRoads, 2002). On October 1 st 1990, the Victorian Road Safety Act was amended to contain provisions requiring drink driving first offenders and recidivists to undergo assessment and/or attend a drink drive DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 11

20 education course as part of their licence restoration process (Department of Human Services, 1998). This amendment stated that offenders must follow procedures under Section 50(4B) of the Road Table 1 Guidelines for re-licensing drink driver offenders Offence Requirements One offence 1, One offence 1, One offence 1, One offence 1 Second or BAC of BAC of BAC of of at least more , or offence 3 within non-bac 10 years driving offence 2 10 Demerit Yes (when No No No Only if your Point licence has BAC was less not been than 0.05 and cancelled 4,5 ) the Court does not cancel your licence Education Yes, if under 25 Yes, if under 25 Yes, if under 25. Yes, if under 25. Yes, if under 25. Course If not, check If not, check If not, check with court with court with court Assessments No No No Yes Yes Licence No No Yes Yes 5 Yes Restoration Order (LRO) 4 and Z condition 5 Alcohol Interlock No No No Court decides Yes 6 licence condition (when re-licensed) Source: VicRoads, (2005) The Next Step for Driving Offenders, VicRoads. 1 You have no prior offences, or the prior offence is more than 10 years old at the time of application. 2 Non-BAC drink driving offences include driving under the influence of alcohol, refusing to provide a test sample, and refusing to stop at a breath testing station or to co-operate in the conduct of the test. These requirements also apply to drivers found guilty of manslaughter, culpable driving causing death, dangerous driving causing death or serious injury where alcohol was a contributing factor. 3 You have at least one prior offence within the last 10 years at the time of application. A second or more offence is one where there is a prior offence within the last 10 years at the time of application. Prior offences include all drink driving offences including interstate ones; and: culpable driving causing death dangerous driving causing death or serious injury, and negligently causing serious injury, where alcohol was a contributing factor. These count as prior offences whether or not a conviction was recorded. 4 For more information on how to apply for an LRO contact your local Magistrates Court. 5 If the LRO is not subject to an I condition (that you only drive a vehicle fitted with an alcohol interlock), then your licence permit will be subject to a Z condition for 3 years. This restricts you to zero BAC when driving. If the LRO is subject to an I condition you will be restricted to zero BAC when driving for 3 years, or until the I condition is removed, whichever is longer. 6 If your licence was cancelled on or before 13 May 2002, the court will decide whether you have an interlock condition on your licence. 12 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

21 Safety Act prior to applying for a licence restoration order. Such procedures include: having an alcohol assessment at least 12 months before applying for a licence restoration order obtaining a licence restoration report within 28 days of applying for a licence restoration order. Magistrates may also require that other offenders obtain a licence restoration report from an accredited organisation prior to issuing them a restoration order (Department of Human Services, 1998). Only offenders who are 25 years of age and older and whose BAC at a first offence is less than 0.1% are exempt from an obligation to complete a program (Department of Human Services, 1998). The current distinction between offenders under 25 years and those older than 25 years has a sound basis in published research. Table 1 illustrates the eligibility of offenders to participate in the program. Alcohol interlock legislation came into effect on 13 th May 2002 in Victoria and the law applies to repeat offenders (during last 10 years) and some serious first time offenders who commit an offence on or after this date. When drink driving offenders who have committed one offence where their BAC is over 0.15 or a non-bac offence (includes: DUI; refusing to provide a breath or blood sample; refusing to stop at a random breath test station) apply to get their licence back, the court may require offenders to have an interlock condition on their licence for six months or longer. Drivers convicted of culpable driving or manslaughter where alcohol was involved may also be included in this group. If offenders have three or more drink driving offences, or two offences where their most recent offence was a BAC of 0.15 or more, or a non-bac offence - when offenders apply to get their licence back they are required to have an interlock condition on their licence for at least three years. If they have two offences and the most recent offence the BAC was less than 0.15, they will be required to have an interlock condition on their licence for at least six months when they apply to get their licence back. 3.2 Description of Victorian Drink Driver Education Program Overview of the Program The Victorian Drink Driver Education Program (VDDEP) is the range of procedures that drivers apprehended for, and convicted of, drink driving offences must undergo as a pre-requisite for regaining their Victorian driving licence. The VDDEP comprises a range of requirements including attendance at an eight hour education course and one or more assessments for alcohol problems. Not all offenders are required to undertake all of these components. The overall aim of the VDDEP as directed by DHS is to strengthen measures to reduce the harm associated with hazardous alcohol consumption through intervention with drink drivers. The overall objectives of the program are to: establish and apply accreditation standards and procedures for the Drink Driver Education Program in Victoria monitor and review standards and procedures for accredited programs encourage the availability and accessibility for accredited drink driver education programs provide training, disseminate information and develop educational resources to maintain a minimum standard of drink driver education program delivery evaluate the effectiveness of the Drink Driver Education Program (Department of Human Services, 1998). DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 13

22 The education and assessments required under the VDDEP are provided by drink driving agencies accredited by DHS. Since 1990, the number of agencies accredited under the VDDEP has grown steadily to the current figure of approximately 38 (as at October 2003). Some of these are privately owned and are profit-driven businesses, while others are operated on a not-for-profit basis by organisations such as community health services Accreditation Only organisations that have gained full accreditation from Department of Human Services (DHS) are eligible to provide education and assessment services to drink driving offenders (Department of Human Services, 1998). The accreditation system makes provision for systematic monitoring and evaluation of programs whilst allowing diversity in approach and content by individual program providers. Accreditation, once issued, is reviewed every 2 years through a re-accreditation audit. In addition to this audit, DHS or its representatives may carry out random spot checks for specific purposes at any agency at any time. Agencies are required to provide appropriate documentation as evidence of their legal standing for initial and ongoing accreditation. In addition to agency accreditation, all the individuals providing education or assessment services within each agency have been required to be individually accredited by DHS for each type of service they deliver (either education or assessments). To help meet the demand and ensure quality of program delivery, the DHS, under the Act, became responsible for a system of accreditation for organisations wishing to conduct drink driver education programs (Department of Human Services, 1998) Education Courses Program objectives vary between agencies as each agency is required to set their own. The guidelines set by DHS suggest: meeting the minimum standards set by DHS encouraging change in client s drinking behaviour passing on information, skills and awareness of community and personal drinking patterns. The program standards specify that the minimum duration for a drink driver program is eight hours; that there must be at least two sessions; and that the first and last sessions must be separated by a minimum period of seven days (Hennessy, 1998). Some categories of offenders who are not required by law to attend courses, attend either because the court staff advised them to on the basis that magistrates will invariably require them to, or because they are referred to a drink drive course by the assessor at a drink drive agency (Hennessy, 1998). Once a program has been completed, the agency issues a certificate of completion of education courses. The agency then provides a licence restoration report to give to the magistrate who completes a licence restoration order (if they believe the offender should get their licence back). The offender takes this order to VicRoads to re-instate their licence. There is no requirement for participants to be examined on their knowledge Assessment, Referral and Treatment The assessment component within the VDDEP refers to a procedure whereby individual offenders are assessed for their suitability for licence restoration. An assessment and licence restoration report is required for offenders who have any of the following: a BAC of 0.15% or higher a previous drink driving offence a conviction of driving under the influence or refused to submit to a BAC test (Department of Human Services, 1998). 14 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

23 The clinical assessor is a professional working in an accredited drink drive agency who has qualifications and experience in the drug and alcohol field as a counsellor. The two assessments take the form of minute interviews, during which the offender s alcohol consumption is discussed, together with lifestyle and relationship issues. A standard screening instrument is usually used. The first assessment should be conducted at least 12 months before the application for relicensing. It focuses on the client s history of alcohol and drug usage, the amount of psychosocial disruption in their lives, and current alcohol usage. Clients identified as possibly alcohol dependent or with serious alcohol-related problems may be referred to a treatment program prior to completion of an education program. The second assessment is conducted within 28 days of the application for licence restoration and focuses on the client s alcohol use since the first assessment. The agency writes a licence restoration report for submission to the court at the time of the hearing of the person s application. The purpose of the licence restoration report, as set out in the program guidelines, is to provide information to the magistrate regarding the client s alcohol usage and attendance at an accredited drink driver program. This second assessment is postponed for recidivists who have had an interlock condition on their licence until they are applying to have their interlock condition removed from their licence. Summary data recording the offender s use of the interlock will be examined and included in the assessment report which is tendered to the court. Where the second assessment is conducted at a different agency, the initial agency must provide a summary of attendance and the assessment is to be provided to the accredited organisation forwarding the request. Participants should be referred for assessment for suitability for treatment if they present as alcohol dependent or with severe problems at the initial assessment (Department of Human Services, 1998). DHS advises that participants referred to a treatment centre for assessment of suitability for treatment must be excluded from any further participation within the drink driver program until documented evidence of attendance at a treatment organisation is provided (Department of Human Services, 1998). This aims to ensure that those offenders who require treatment for an alcohol and/or drug problem are referred to an appropriate agency for assessment and treatment. Agencies must refer participants to a treatment organisation for assessment and treatment when a participant: is assessed by the assessor as in need of further assessment and treatment is a recidivist offender attends following consumption of alcohol or other drugs repeatedly breaks the attendance conditions presents as alcohol dependent or with severe problems at the initial assessment requests further intervention for an acknowledged problem (Department of Human Service, 2002). Assessment agencies who are also Drug Treatment Agencies may either continue their contact with such offenders or refer them to appropriate specialist alcohol and drug treatment agencies (Department of Human Services, 2002) Fees The program operates on a user pays basis. The latest Victorian Accredited Driver Education Programs directory (February 2003) issued by DHS lists drink driver program/drug driver program agencies according to location. In this directory, the Victorian Association of Drink Driver Services (VADDS) recommends the following program fees: DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 15

24 First Assessment Fee (per hour): $165 Second Assessment Fee (per hour): $175 8-Hour Education Program Fee: $185 Time Reduction Court Report Fee: $75 Goods and Services Tax (GST) is included in this price. These fees are recommended only and agencies are free to vary this fee by whatever amount they choose. They do not include costs of attendance at a treatment agency if this is required. 3.3 Re-Licensing In order for an offender to have their licence restored, they must undergo a second assessment within 28 days of the application for licence restoration. The purpose of the licence restoration report, as set out in the program guidelines, is to provide information to the magistrate regarding the client s alcohol usage and attendance at an accredited drink driver program. This assessment focuses on the client s alcohol use since the first assessment. A licence restoration report is to be prepared within 28 days of an offender applying for licence restoration and is to be prepared by the assessor who has performed the most recent assessment (Department of Human Services, 1998). The process of the licence restoration report is set out according to standards developed by the Department of Human Services. A summary of both the first and second assessment is prepared and signed by the assessor and endorsed by the Clinical and Educational Supervisor (who is responsible for overall responsibility for ensuring that the agency complies with the DHS guidelines and standards) for inclusion in the licence restoration report. This report contains a brief summary of the education program and both assessments and aims to draw the magistrate s attention to favourable, adverse or no change in the behaviour of the offender in relation to alcohol and/or other drugs. The report contains a statement to the magistrate on whether further assessment for drug or other treatment is or is not recommended for the client (Department of Human Services, 2002). The licence restoration report is then forwarded directly to the magistrate s court in which the offender s application for licence restoration will be heard. A copy shall be made available to the client on request. A copy is also retained by the agency and stored in the clinical file of the offender (Department of Human Services, 2002). The legislative requirements for licence restoration vary according to: the age of the driver (under or 25 years of age and over) the nature of the offence exceeding prescribed alcohol content, driving under the influence of alcohol or refusal to give a breath test, blood sample or stopping at a breath testing station the BAC at the time of the offence whether there was at least one prior offence (in the 10 years prior to the court hearing of the application of licence restoration). These are summarised in Table 1 on pages 12. The process for removal of the interlock licence condition and interlock involves: the offender obtaining an Interlock Condition Removal Order (ICRO) from the Magistrates Court before they can apply to VicRoads to have the I condition removed from their licence 16 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

25 VicRoads encourages offenders to ensure they have a good record before applying to obtain an ICRO the magistrate will take into account the offender s behaviour on the interlock as well as the assessment report when deciding whether to remove the I condition. 3.4 Evaluation The most recent evaluation of the VDDEP was commissioned by the Department of Human Services and carried out by Hennessy Services Pty Ltd during the period July 1997 to December This evaluation involved a formative and process evaluation and examined the program procedures and their impact on the various participants in the program offenders, accredited drink drive agencies, magistrates, Direct Line, the Department of Human Services and VicRoads. The scope of the evaluation did not include outcome measures such as crash or recidivism rates. The evaluation methods included a review of published and program literature, key informant consultations, visits to agencies, consultations and observations, and two questionnaire surveys, one for agencies and one for a sample of offenders. Key findings and recommendations from this evaluation were that: most drink driver education courses were rated by the evaluator and by the participants as being good or very good. The format of an eight hour course, with the first and last session at least seven days apart, has advantages and should be maintained. there is a need for the majority of agencies to improve their courses and the quality and currency of teaching materials, especially videos. better ways of catering for education course participants from non-english speaking backgrounds are needed. the assessment procedures do not appear to be working as well as the education courses with the rate of referral of clients to further services being 23%, which is lower than the referral rates expected when the program was established. There is considerable diversity between programs (Hennessy, 1998). The current review indicated that the length of the education course remains at eight hours and it appears that there has been some recent effort to improve the quality of teaching resources such as videos and manuals through collaboration with the Australian Drug Foundation. The authors of this report are unable to determine whether better ways of catering for NESB participants have been designed and implemented or if referral rates for treatment have increased. Hennessy (1998) also suggested that program diversity had the potential to adversely affect effectiveness through inconsistent teaching standards, lack of specialised staff training, and lack of knowledge about the programs by magistrates. The report recommended that an auditing process be undertaken to examine a range of quality aspects of agency performance. Attention was also drawn to the need to provide programs that did not require long travel times for attendance, such as in rural areas and to ensure that programs incorporated recent best practice and were provided in a professional and systematic way. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 17

26 4. Policies and Practices in Other States and Territories The following section provides a general overview of legislation and practice in other states and territories. The information is not readily available and whilst documentation was sought from relevant departments, most current practice was provided by offices working in the area that were known to the research team. In response to the difficulty locating information, a more comprehensive and systematic review is now being developed. 4.1 Australian Capital Territory In the A.C.T. the court may give offenders the option of attending a drink driving rehabilitation course at the offenders expense. Program completion and fees paid are taken into consideration by the magistrate when assessing the level of fine and other penalties. Rehabilitation courses based on the Queensland UTL program are run by the Alcohol and Drug Foundation and are weekly 90 minute sessions conducted over three months. Summary: Voluntary post-sentencing scheme 4.2 New South Wales New South Wales offers a variety of Traffic Offender Programs (TOPs) that are educational courses designed for repeat and serious traffic offenders. Offenders can be offered a TOP under the criminal justice intervention legislation enacted in 2002 as part of a pre-sentence diversionary scheme. Participation is voluntary and at the Magistrates discretion. If offenders accept the program their court case is deferred until completion of the program and if they complete the program satisfactorily no other penalty is given or conviction recorded. The content and approach to each program in various regions differ. The programs offer eight topics of 2 hours duration each over eight weeks designed to address drink/drug driving, and are delivered through a variety of private providers, community and government agencies. An evaluation of the Mt. Penang TOP by the NSW Road Traffic Authority (RTA) in 1999 suggested that participation in a TOP could reduce the probability of re-offending by 25%. A specific Sober Driver program is also available for repeat drink drivers. At the discretion of the magistrate, convicted offenders who volunteer can be placed on a bond under the supervision of probation officers and are required to complete the program. The program is conducted by the Probation and Parole Service. Offenders who have had their licence disqualified through a major alcohol-related offence may also apply through the courts to have the disqualification period suspended by participation in the breath alcohol interlock program. Summary: Voluntary pre-sentencing diversionary scheme for recidivists and high BAC offenders Sober driving program available to recidivists at discretion of magistrate. Interlocks available on application to courts 4.3 Northern Territory Northern Territory has been offering a drink driver education program since 1995 and offenders who have been disqualified from driving must complete this program as a legislative requirement before they are eligible to be re-licensed. The program consists of two modules. First time offenders with a BAC less than 0.15 must complete the first module of five sessions of two hours duration 18 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

27 that addresses the short term effects of alcohol and alternative strategies. Repeat offenders and offenders with a BAC of 0.15 or greater must complete the first module as well as an additional module that addresses the long-term effects of alcohol and alternative strategies. Dwyer and Bolton (1998) evaluated the program and found that only 12.8% of successful completers had re-offended within two years following re-licensing. This model, however, of evaluation fails to account for those offenders who move or fail to renew their licence. Summary: Compulsory pre-licensing scheme 4.4 Queensland A drink driving program is available post-sentencing on a voluntary basis in Queensland. The drink driving rehabilitation program known as the Under the Limit (UTL) is provided state wide and is comprised of eleven sessions of 1 hours duration. The content of the UTL includes a range of interventions that provide information and education about the impact of drink driving, as well as specific interventions that address antisocial attitudes and problem drinking. An outcome evaluation of the UTL (Siskind, Sheehan, Schonfeld & Ferguson, 2000) demonstrated an ability to reduce drink driving by 55% among high risk serious offenders who successfully completed the program. An alcohol interlock trial using a similar voluntary post sentencing basis is in the process of being evaluated. Summary: Voluntary post-sentencing scheme with fine reduction at discretion of magistrates 4.5 South Australia In South Australia there are no specific drink driver rehabilitation/education programs. However, an alcohol interlock program is offered on a voluntary basis. Offenders may apply to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles after completing half of their disqualification period to have their licence re-instated if they are prepared to participate in the alcohol interlock program for a period twice the number of days remaining on their disqualification. This program has been in operation for two years and approximately 130 offenders have participated to date. This number is far less than the 900 participants that were anticipated on an annual basis and this may be due to the cost of the program. Financial assistance to participate in this program is offered to low income earners. Counselling is offered at the entry and exit points of this program and if alcohol problems are detected further counselling is available. If offenders are assessed as alcohol dependent they are not issued with a licence until these problems have been addressed. Summary: No rehabilitation/education program Interlock offered on a voluntary basis with extended disqualification period 4.6 Tasmania No educational or alcohol ignition interlock programs are currently offered for drink drivers in Tasmania. Summary: No rehabilitation/education or interlock scheme DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 19

28 4.7 Western Australia No educational or interlock programs are offered for drink drivers in Western Australia. However, until recently, there was a brief educational program available for provisional licence holders who had lost their licence through drink driving. This program was offered on a voluntary basis and referral was through the court system. The program ceased due to the low numbers. The Western Australia Road Safety Council has formed a task force to review the possibility of legislating for suitable remedial and alcohol interlock programs for convicted drink drivers. Summary: No rehabilitation/education or interlock scheme 4.8 Offenders in Prison People in prison, who are often the most serious offenders, remain a group that are not specifically targeted by the current rehabilitation programs and from the international literature also least likely to be effectively reached by rehabilitation programs. Prison programs for drink driving offenders are almost uniformly unsuccessful. This may in part reflect the fact that successful rehabilitation requires practice in life skills and lifestyle change and this is not available to a prison population. Hence, further research is required into the likely effectiveness of targeting serious drink driving offenders who are in prison, including the option of special post-release programs. 20 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

29 5. Methodology 5.1 Introduction The present research aimed to examine stakeholder s perceptions of the drink driving program operating in Victoria. It did not replicate the Henessey (1998) evaluation of specific programs but the sought the experiences of, and beliefs about, the effectiveness of the model as a policy. The methods used are described in the following section. 5.2 Participants Service Administrators A list of potential service administrators (including service providers) in the field of drink driving in Victoria was provided by RACV. A couple of service administrators were unable to be contacted due to moving interstate or not having contact details not being readily available. Initial contact with potential service administrators to confirm they were still working in areas relevant to drink driving also led to suggestions of other appropriate persons. A letter was sent stating that feedback was needed from service administrators in community correctional services, police, transport and health sectors regarding their perceptions of the delivery of drink driving rehabilitation programs and any barriers to effective delivery. The letter also stated that a member of the CARRS-Q project team would contact them to discuss their experiences in the rehabilitation of offenders from their agency s perspective and any potential improvements that could be made to the current system of drink driving rehabilitation in Victoria. All service administrators who received the letter from RACV were contacted by the CARRS-Q project officer and appointments were made for an interview to be undertaken. In total, 27 service administrators and service providers who were working in the field of drink driving prevention and rehabilitation, or who had extensive experience in either of these areas, were interviewed by one of the researchers in July/August See appendix 2 for a list of participants. The following organisations were represented in the interviews: VicRoads Department of Justice Victoria Police Transport Accident Commission Department of Human Services Community Correctional Services The Alfred Hospital Drink Driver Services Drink Driver Education and Assessment Victorian Association of Drink Drivers (VADDS) Road Safety Committee of Victoria Parliament Turning Point. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 21

30 5.2.2 Magistrates In early November 2003 Chief Magistrate Ian Gray provided approval and support for the study. Regional Coordinating Magistrates (in charge of each region) were given a briefing at the Regional Coordinating Magistrate s quarterly meeting. This briefing paper was provided by the research team to the Chief Magistrate and included information about questions to be asked at focus groups with Magistrates and a profile of the research team. In late November, a list of all the Regional Coordinating Magistrates (RCM) was obtained from the Chief Magistrate. This list had contact details of each RCM and the courts within their region. The Chief Magistrate recommended conducting the focus groups over three days. Each region was contacted a week before to find suitable times for a focus group or interview. The project team then developed a schedule to fit in as many regions as possible during these three days, ensuring that some rural regions were included. RCM s were then contacted to confirm the day and time of the focus group/interview and sent a fax giving an overview of the project as well as the types of issues that were going to be discussed. Of the 11 regions in Victoria, six regions were able to participate in focus groups or a one-onone interview during the time period, with a total of 20 magistrates participating. Country magistrates were only able to participate in one-on-one interviews due to the limited availability of other magistrates within the region on the day at the scheduled time. The number of magistrates who participated in each region are listed in table 3. Table 3 Region Heidelberg 4 Dandenong 6 Ballarat 1 Bendigo 1 Frankston 3 Melbourne Program Providers During the interview with Mark Kelly (President, VADDS) and Sue Stanley (Executive Officer, VADDS), it was decided that all drink drive agencies including VADDS members should be given the opportunity to provide comment on the program. Subsequently, a short questionnaire was developed and mailed to all agencies. The questionnaire was designed in consultation with the President of VADDS and distributed to each provider with an attached ethics information sheet to outline the purpose of the questionnaire. These survey questionnaires were mailed to all listed providers during October and a reminder from VADDS was sent to all agencies asking them to complete the questionnaire in November. The VADDS executive supported this process by contacting all their members and encouraging them to provide a response to the questionnaire. Fourteen drink drive agencies completed and returned the questionnaire. Number of magistrates interviewed in each region Number of Magistrates 5.3 Interviews and Questionnaires Service Administrators Service administrators were asked specific questions for their sector relating to education and rehabilitation; legislation and fines; alcohol ignition interlocks; initiatives to manage offenders; as well as experience in the area of drink driving. In most cases, the interview became a guided discussion about the topics rather than a structured interview Magistrates Questions asked in the focus groups/interviews surrounded the issues for first offenders and recidivists and addressed: 22 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

31 current legislation appropriateness of penalties for first offenders and recidivists (fines, disqualification periods, jail sentences, other types of sanctions such as vehicle impoundment or electronic house monitoring) knowledge of the education course (equity in availability and accessibility, literacy of offenders, quality of course) quality of the reports given to court (variation in recommendations, usefulness to magistrates) problems with the process for re-licensing difficulties in tracking and monitoring offenders potential challenges with interlocks Service Providers The survey questionnaires sent to drink drive agencies including members of the VADDS, contained questions surrounding the issues of resources; offender group; potential register of offenders; assessments; referrals; and program content and style. Open-ended questions, closed questions and scales were used. 5.4 Procedure Service Administrators The interviews were conducted in meeting rooms to ensure privacy and confidentiality. Interview times were arranged to ensure 1 hours was allocated in case of lengthy discussions with service administrators and were at a suitable time indicated by each service administrator. An initial introduction to the project was given to service administrators by the researcher and then questions were asked in accordance with their stated knowledge. The majority of interviews took approximately 1 hour Magistrates Two members of the project team visited Victoria during the end of November to talk with magistrates and conduct focus groups Service Providers Survey questionnaires were sent to all members of VADDS (including all service providers) and included a reply paid envelope. 5.5 Ethical Approval Ethical clearance to conduct interviews with service administrators, magistrates and service providers for this stage of the study was obtained from Queensland University of Technology s University Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC). See Appendix 1. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 23

32 6. Victorian Stakeholder Perceptions In this section a review of the stakeholder s perceptions and experience of the Victorian Drink Driving Education Program (VDDEP) policy is undertaken. In the process of analysis, nine important issues emerged: the general status of the VDDEP; legislation, penalties and judicial processes; monitoring, tracking and mentoring; the education course; assessments and reporting process; referral and treatment; licence restoration process and unlicensed driving; alcohol ignition interlocks and other sanctions and research priorities and development opportunities. Each of these is discussed separately and an overview of the key issues is given. The priority concerns are also discussed at the end of each section drawing on the content of the interviews and on the perspective provided through the literature review. 6.1 General Status of Victorian Drink Drive Program Overview All participants believed that there are problems in the sharing of information between the government bodies (such as VicRoads, DHS, Courts, Department of Justice) as well as of the expectations that each body has of the other. Many stated that the program needs to be improved in terms of the licence restoration process and alcohol assessments but doesn t necessarily need a radical revision. There were concerns about possible conflicts of interest in the process for service providers, and it was suggested by some that the program would be better delivered by a government agency. The role of VADDS is seen positively Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators Comments received by Service Administrators include: The program, as is, can be improved, but it doesn t need a radical revision. Many other service administrators however did not hold this opinion. There are some fairly well entrenched systemic issues about who provides drink driving services and how it is managed. One service administrator went so far as to say it is a grandiose scheme, while going on to say the problem is that the education courses operate in isolation to the whole of the road safety education system. An over compensation around issues such as equity and transparency that is potentially to the detriment of the client was a comment made by one service administrator. When it is treated as a health problem there are road safety side effects and therefore running it out of DHS makes it a little isolated from mainstream road safety. It might be that there is not sufficient integration between government agencies they develop their niche and then run their own race. One service administrator recommended that the program should be run out of community health. Another service administrator mentioned that there is a missed opportunity to have an early intervention. This (the program) is a late intervention. Many service administrators spoke of the conflict of interest around the privatised nature of agencies. One service administrator mentioned that the lines between who is the diagnoser, the referrer, the provider, and the assessor is a little bit messy. 24 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

33 The standard of service that offenders get in a privatized system is not very good when an agency is good it is because there is an individual there who is personally committed. On the other hand, one service administrator suggested that best quality control is having a personal connection with DHS and knowing they do audits. Many service administrators commented on the inherent fragmentation between DHS, VicRoads and the courts, noting that they all have very distinct roles. Drink driving in Victoria is an incredibly fragmented system and is one in which there are quite a lot of different players who don t have any other routine relationships with each other and don t routinely communicate. The most noted comment by service administrators concerned the poor communication between government agencies and the lack of collaboration and linking with other programs. On a positive note, VADDS is seen by many service administrators as moving the drink drive program forward. One service administrator stated that there is a strong peak body in VADDS and they have become a very professional association. VADDS is also seen by some service administrators as encouraging agencies to take a less competitive and more sharing approach and addressing the issue of more up-to-date resources for all agencies to access. One service administrator suggested that DHS should monitor providers to make sure they are doing follow-ups and reviews of offenders, as providers are the ones who are signing their names to say this person is fit to have their licence renewed. Magistrates Many magistrates stated that it is not their role to do anything about the quality of the course because it is accredited by DHS but they were concerned about the quality of the education courses. All magistrates expressed concern about the private nature of drink drive agencies and believed that there is a conflict of interest when they provide assessments and licence reports for a fee. Few comments were made about the overall program as all magistrates indicated they only need to know about the legislative and penalties component as it is not their concern to know about the entire program. Service Providers Agencies were not asked directly about their relationships with other organisations although some agencies suggested that there is a great deal of misinformation being given to offenders by VicRoads and the Courts Priority Issues The need for a mechanism to facilitate sharing of information and expectations between service administrators, magistrates and service providers was highlighted by the majority of all groups of stakeholders. Such problems are not unique to the area of drink driving. A recent study by Robertson & Simpson (2003) highlighted similar issues raised by criminal justice professionals and recommended that communication needs to be improved within and between the professional groups. 6.2 Legislation, Penalties and Judicial Processes Overview Interviews with magistrates revealed they held very strong opinions about problems with the legislation and penalties for drink drivers. They believe they have little flexibility in applying the law to accommodate the circumstances of offenders. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 25

34 Most service providers believe that the decisions of magistrates are inconsistent with the licence restoration process and offenders in general. Service providers also believed that magistrates are not consistent in their requirements of agencies Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators The majority of service administrators made comments about problems involved in the judicial process. The problems regarding the judicial process came down to two issues: the licence restoration process and consistency between magistrates. The issue of consistency between magistrates was brought up on a number of occasions. Many stated that they thought magistrates were not consistent in their dealings with licence restoration and offenders in general. Another service administrator mentioned that anytime we take away discretion from magistrates it is met with resistance. It really comes down to the magistrates deciding amongst themselves as to how they are going to apply something. A recurring comment was that magistrates were consistent in expecting every offender to attend an education course (even though it is not law in some cases). One service administrator suggested that inconsistency between magistrates makes it difficult for treatment providers in treating people. A few service administrators suggested that recidivist drink drivers should be placed on some sort of probation order. Under current legislation, only the most serious are on a drug treatment order - to keep them out of jail. Most offenders on probation, regardless of the index offence, have an alcohol or other drug problem. We need to think about other measures such as tightening up on rehabilitation programs rather than having such long disqualification periods. One service administrator indicated that there is a problem if an offender does the program while in jail - by the time they get out, they ve forgotten everything they learned. Magistrates The majority of magistrates think that there are problems with the current legislation as there are some savvy barristers out there who find technical defences. On the other hand some magistrates think that re-writing the legislation is not necessarily the solution as you would just get another set of problems with the new legislation. Some magistrates stated that drink driving takes up a small part of their day and that they don t have enough time to be experts on drink driving legislation and the barristers who specialise in this area can get their clients off because they know the loop holes. The majority of magistrates believed that magistrates do not have enough discretion or flexibility with the current legislation, particularly with first offenders that have a low BAC and have a perfect driving history for the past 30 years. The legislation for interlocks which was introduced in May 2002 was thought by most magistrates as not well thought out. Magistrates expressed many concerns about fines and penalties. 26 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

35 The majority of magistrates believe that fines are a total waste of time with one magistrate commenting that this is evidenced by the huge amount of fines that are unpaid. One magistrate suggested that a multiple of fees are insurmountable for some lower socioeconomic groups and you have to think that it is better for them to have a licence and keep them in the licensing system. Some magistrates said that fines are appropriate for first offences but for all subsequent offences, fines are not really a deterrent, although one magistrate suggested that even fines for the lower socioeconomic groups are not a deterrent as they just pay it off in weekly instalments. All magistrates expressed the view that loss of licence is a far greater deterrent than fines, although they noted that some offenders would not even be deterred by licence loss. The penalties for high BAC offenders were suggested by many to be inadequate, although one magistrate suggested that if you combine the fine plus disqualification, then it is a severe penalty. All magistrates believed that people need to realise that they will lose their licence if they drink drive. There is an attitude that drink driving is not really a criminal offence but rather a misdemeanour. One magistrate stated that there are dysfunctional penalties, in that the penalty system is dysfunctional when dealing with offenders who may be illiterate or just not very bright. Another magistrate was concerned about long disqualification periods and suggested that short and sharp may be more effective, with another magistrate stating we are tougher in Victoria than other states in terms of disqualification. One magistrate stated that penalties are far more punitive in nature now than they used to be, while another suggested that penalties are very uneven on the community. Some magistrates stated that we are putting people in the situation of driving unlicensed. Placing a recidivist in jail was thought by the majority of magistrates to be the last resort however some magistrates were concerned that they need to keep the offender from potentially harming the community. Jail is an option but is a last resort because they are very expensive and jails are filling up and it is also not a good environment. Another magistrate suggested that some offenders don t find jail a deterrent at all and will re-offend. Magistrates tend to have their own personal criteria as to when to send someone to jail. In terms of recidivists, magistrates are concerned about the maximum penalty being too short (legislation states a maximum of 3 months jail), with one magistrate commenting that this is a joke, while another said it is ridiculous. One magistrate suggested that jail is needed if someone really needs to be kept away from the community and that there should be a program in jail for recidivists like the sex offenders course. Service Providers Most agencies tended to disagree with the statement magistrates are too flexible about the time between assessments while agencies were more likely to agree with the statement that magistrates are not consistent in the requirements of agencies Priority Issues The unprecedented growth in drink driving legislation in Victoria in the past decade has made an already complicated system even more so. Cases have become so complex and arduous that it is frustrating, discouraging and sometimes intimidating to stakeholders. Despite the good intent and strong expectations of legislators, a patchwork of laws with little consideration for the whole system has been created. Streamlining and simplifying the current legislation to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system may be required. As Robertson & Simpson (2003) suggest a preeminent concern is not with passing new laws but making the existing laws work better so they can achieve their intended goals. The need to categorise hard core offenders and recidivists separately from first time offenders in the legislation is another priority issue. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 27

36 6.3 Monitoring, Tracking and Mentoring Overview Service administrators and service providers consistently stated that offenders do not receive adequate information regarding the process that they are required to go through. A central register would be beneficial in monitoring and tracking offenders. Some providers suggested that even when offenders are given the necessary information (at court or by mail), they are often in an emotional state and do not realise the importance of the pamphlet and discard it. They also do not seem to comprehend the importance of reporting for their first assessment in a timely manner. On the contrary, magistrates believe that all offenders do receive the information from the courts but are not responsible enough to do what is required, or are not truthful when asked if they received the information. Many agencies and magistrates believe that a central register would be beneficial and it was suggested that either VicRoads or the courts would be best placed to be responsible for maintaining this register Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators It was believed that many offenders throw out the information pertaining to the process required for relicensing as they are angry at losing their licence. The majority of service administrators indicated that offenders do not start the process of rehabilitation soon enough after they are convicted of a drink driving offence. There is a widespread belief amongst service administrators that there is difficulty with getting the message to offenders that they need to start the process immediately after sentencing. Service administrators commented that since many offenders are transient, many do not update their mailing details with VicRoads and do not receive mailed information. This issue is also related to the recommendation by some service administrators that there is a need for a central record system to track an offender s progress. All service administrators commented about the difficulty of ensuring offenders have information regarding the process of the licence restoration process including completing an education course and assessment. One service administrator stated that offenders change address or leave court quickly so they never receive notification of the licence restoration process. A couple of service administrators mentioned the need for a central register to monitor offender progress and also record the number of times an offender visits an agency, completion of education courses, complete the process correctly and meet all requirements. Some comments were made about the need for a mentoring role and who should take that mentoring role, either the agency or Community Correctional Services. All service administrators indicated that offenders may shop around to get a more favourable assessment and no-one would know as there is no way of ascertaining if offenders have enrolled with any other agency (or multiple agencies). The need to get feedback about the demographic trends of clients was also raised by a couple of service administrators. Probation was an issue raised by a few service administrators and one service administrator suggested that the advantage of having the offender on probation is maintaining contact to ensure they are going through the process correctly. 28 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

37 I like the idea of linking the treatment with supervision. I think that gets the message to them that the two aren t separate The licenser and the CCO aren t separate The two are joined, because at the moment it seems like the two are separate. You are seeing a CCO and that is part of your punishment, but you go somewhere else in order to get your licence back. One person mentioned possible disadvantages of probation, If offenders are on probation, they can breach the order by having an unpaid fine, so they can t get their licence back, they can t work, and so the cycle goes on. Magistrates Many magistrates firmly believed that offenders do get the information from the court when they attend and it is nonsense that they say they don t get the information. The idea of the development of a register database that would track and monitor offenders throughout the process from detection of a drink driving offence to re-licensing, was brought up with magistrates in discussion. Many magistrates thought that it would be a good idea as it would potentially stop the shopping around by offenders, with one magistrate stating that there needs to be a better tracking system as it is imperfect. One magistrate suggested that offenders need to be followed-up after they get their licence back as they potentially go back to their own ways. However, one magistrate stated that a database to track and monitor offenders is ridiculous as resources could be better used in other areas such as subsidising interlocks. Another magistrate thought that this would be too expensive and not cost effective. One magistrate went on to say that we are going to have a crisis in jailable offences because offenders can t afford the interlock costs. Service Providers Nine agencies thought that the development of a register of offenders to track and monitor offenders throughout the process of their charge, conviction, program course attendance and re-licensing, could resolve some of the problems such as shopping around of offenders; offenders not completing the program; offenders registering with more than one agency; offenders not returning to court; offenders not having the assessments. Agencies were divided about the statement offenders don t report for treatment when referred as well as the statement applications for re-licensing between assessments are so frequent it has become a farce. The Courts were considered by a third of respondents (36%) as being the most suitable to be responsible for setting up and maintaining a register, followed by DHS (14%). Agencies considered that the best way to access information from a register of offenders would be (29%). Comments included: the courts should be responsible for follow-up ; had a recent case whereby a register would have been useful and a register would not be relevant in rural areas Priority Issues The majority of stakeholders identified that the record keeping of offenders requires improvement and is a priority for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the drink drive program in Victoria. Recent research from the U.S. that examined problems in the Driving While Influenced system suggests that there is a need to develop, improve and evaluate record systems to promote integration and coordinate the needed data-sharing capabilities among government bodies to ensure timely access to appropriate, accurate and current information (Robertson & Simpson, 2003). Collaboration between the courts and rehabilitation institutions is believed to help maximise the benefits of sentencing, tracking and monitoring, and treatment of recidivist offenders (Century Council, 1999). With stakeholders requiring similar information on which to base decisions, the need to locate and access progress is a priority issue. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 29

38 6.4 Education Course Overview The majority of service administrators believe that there is a lot a variation in the quality of courses. The course, as currently designed, is not appropriate for recidivists. Magistrates knew very little about the education course but expressed concerns about the quality and content of the course. Agencies generally believed that the course is acceptable as it currently is and that they have enough resources to deliver it effectively Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators How can treatment of education programs withstand the environmental influences to drink over the short-term? Some service administrators commented that feedback from offenders indicated that the content of the program was good. The most common issue that was raised by service administrators was that there is quite a lot a variation in the delivery of the course. One service administrator suggested that all offenders should be given a drink drive calculator in the course so that they will avoid future drink driving episodes by knowing how many standard drinks they have had. Many service administrators commented that there are a variety of people who facilitate education courses and some facilitators are more energetic than others. Additionally, one service administrator suggested that some facilitators openly admit they don t know what to teach for some of the topics as agencies are not provided with the content to be taught within each topic. The positive aspects of these courses raised by service administrators included the direct face-to-face nature of the course as offenders are often in denial about an alcohol problem and they can confront the problem. The issue of the variation in the length of the courses was raised by the majority of service administrators. One service administrator commented as to how DHS determined that eight hours is enough to achieve what needs to be achieved and some offenders may need the course to be presented for one to two hours rather than four hours. Another service administrator suggested that two sessions are better (i.e. two X four hrs) because they get time to think about it and go home and fill out their diaries and then they come back. A service administrator involved with agencies suggested that for some facilitators to deliver the eight hour program is impossible and they finish in four hours and don t know what else to do and in other cases, we battle to fit it all into eight hours. One service administrator commented that the course works well for first offenders with low BAC s to enable them to get their licence restored but recidivists may need different content, aims and length of the course. Another service administrator suggested that the course is very didactic and more centred on health and alcohol, than the separation of drinking and driving. Numerous service administrators from all sectors commented on the degree of variation in which the same material is presented in the education courses. It was also noted by many service administrators that some agencies offer different length education courses for varying inconsistent reasons. Service administrators from sectors other than DHS and drink drive agencies were not aware of the content of education courses. 30 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

39 The education process would be better applied with first time offenders whereas recidivists need clinical treatment not education, suggested one service administrator. With regards to literacy and language, a few service administrators suggested that there are some offenders who can not read but manage to get through the course because they make excuses such as I left my glasses at home. One service administrator estimated that there are approximately 30-40% of offenders who speak a language other than English and when they bring a family member to translate for them it disrupts the class. An interesting story from one service administrator was that a family member was apparently translating what was being said by the facilitator (who happened to know the language that was being interpreted) and what was being translated was completely inaccurate because the family member had put their own slant on it. The aspect of how the treatment versus the education is managed and what sort of balance there is was raised by one service administrator who also commented that we are going down the right track but need more fine tuning. Magistrates The majority of magistrates stated that they knew very little, if nothing about the education courses but many were worried about the quality and content of the course. It is not our role to look into the education course as they are supposed to be accredited by DHS. The majority of magistrates stated that they never receive any feedback from offenders about the quality of the course and that they don t ask for it. Some magistrates stated that they ask questions to see if the offender learned anything from the course. Service Providers All of the responding agencies stated that the education course is ok as it is. Most agencies that responded thought that they have enough resource materials available to be able to deliver the program effectively. When asked if they would prefer to have a greater range of resource materials or would they prefer to have a standard set of resource, the majority stated that they would prefer a range of resources to select from. Some agencies stated that they look for new resources from the Australian Drug Foundation (ADF), the web or VicRoads, while two agencies reported looking to VADDS for new resource materials. Eight agencies reported that they typically have more than 10 offenders participate each course, while six agencies reported having less than 10 offenders participate in each course. The majority of agencies indicated that they believe that the best group size is 8-12 participants. All agencies reported that the majority of offenders who attended the course were male and only two agencies reported that it was a problem if there is only one female in the group. Only five (36%) agencies reported having offenders from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds (NESB) attend their course, with two of these agencies reporting that they hold separate programs for NESB. One agency reported using an interpreter service all of the time while six agencies reported never using an interpreter service and another six reported seldom using an interpreter service. Two agencies stated that they run programs in a language other than English and these languages included Vietnamese, Polish, Chinese, Greek and Italian. Eight agencies reported that accommodating the needs of NESB offenders significantly adds to costs. Three agencies reported having no discretion to vary the delivery format (two x 4 hr sessions) of the education course, while eight agencies stated having some discretion and one stated having considerable discretion. In spite of this apparent variation all but one agency reported delivering the course as indicated by the guidelines (two X 4 hr sessions), with one agency reporting delivering the course in three x 3 hr sessions. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 31

40 Responses to a question about the advantage of having the program less structured included flexibility to issues raised by offenders and allows the presenter to prioritise issues, while responses to a question about the advantage of having the program more structured included consistency between agencies, easier for new presenters and encouraging offenders to take the program more seriously. Six agencies reported that their agency is a one-man-show with the other eight agencies reporting having between two and six presenters facilitate the education course. The majority of agencies stated that their facilitators have formal qualifications Priority Issues A priority issue is investigating the development of a program specifically directed to recidivists as currently first time offenders and recidivists complete the same program. While evidence suggests that remedial education programs may have some benefit, a component of treatment and follow-up are essential to achieve significant behavioural change in recidivists (Century Council, 1999). 6.5 Assessments and Reporting Process Overview The quality of reports was seriously criticized. The main issue was the reduction in time between assessments due to offenders claiming they are unaware of having to attend assessments. The self-report nature of assessments and its lack of reliability. The cost and fee-paying nature of assessments. There was quite a bit of discussion about the conflicting expectations of assessments held by service providers and magistrates Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators Many service administrators raised problems associated with the alcohol assessments. I think that they could be improved dramatically. There are quite a few problems with the way the program on the whole is structured which affects particularly the assessments. The design is ok but the way it s applied is a problem. They are relying on information from the offender. Offenders know the words they need to speak. Service administrators raised the issue of quality and consistency of assessments between agencies. One service administrator was concerned that agencies can choose the assessment instrument rather than having a standardised instrument for all agencies to use for consistency. Service administrators believed that some agencies take assessments very seriously while others are not so thorough. Many service administrators commented on the self-report nature of assessments, but one service administrator raised the point that assessment technology is now very sophisticated and should be investigated. Some magistrates shorten the period between assessments, and this lead to continual comments including it makes a farce of the process and it happens all the time. It was noted by the majority of service administrators that there is a minimum of time required to see change in behaviour and shortening the interval between assessments makes them useless. 32 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

41 A few service administrators commented that some magistrates just want to see a statement on behaviour change and other magistrates just want to see a Liver Function Test (LFT) with one service administrator commenting that they think they can read (interpret) it. Magistrates are quite traditional in their approach to alcohol assessment and they want assessors to say that an offender will not do it again, and there is no way they can do that. Another service administrator noted that some magistrates expect more specific recommendations and others say don t tell me what to do. Magistrates ask why do all your reports say this person is ready for a licence? We don t send anyone who isn t. It s our reputation we re not going to send anyone back who isn t ready. Another service administrator commented that magistrates are sometimes saying that assessors are not giving enough recommendations. One service administrator suggested that there is anecdotal evidence of just paying your money, having a cup of tea, writing the report and then go and see the magistrate. Part of the problem with assessments is getting information to offenders. They are angry at the time of court and don t take in information. There is really no practical way around that (offenders not being informed of assessments) until it is known throughout the community. Magistrates One magistrate commented that reports are disgraceful, another stated that agencies just tick boxes and another noted that they are hand written reports useless information. Reports are not worth reading all reports are positive while another commented that reports are not detailed enough we know that the reports can t be genuine because they are all favourable. It s a farce because agencies make assessments on the basis of lies. Magistrates said that they are very lenient on offenders when they apply for a reduction in time between assessments for a number of reasons. The first is that they believe it is unfair to add time to an offender s disqualification period if they say they weren t aware that they had to have 12 months between assessments. The second is that the reduction between assessment process is a farce and we find exceptions all the time to reduce time and the third is that what one magistrate believes is exceptional circumstances could be very different to what another believes is exceptional circumstances. One magistrate suggested that exceptional circumstances should be demonstrated. Service Providers Most agencies disagreed with the statements treatment agencies do not see drink driving offenders as a priority ; treatment agencies show preference to offenders who are able to pay ; and there are not enough treatment agencies to cater for all the offenders I refer. Agencies agreed with the statements assessments are still realistic/meaningful, even when offenders report late for their first assessment and the applications for reductions in time between offences are so frequent it s become a farce produced more agreement than disagreement among agencies. Agencies were divided in their opinions when asked to respond to the statements magistrates are too flexible about the time between assessments ; magistrates are not consistent in their requirements from the agencies ; and offenders often don t report for treatment when referred Priority Issues A priority issue for the Victorian program is the reporting process by agencies to the court and the conflicting expectations of magistrates and agencies of their role in, and the nature of, this process. All parties believe there should be a radical improvement in assessment procedures. There has been DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 33

42 little or no research on the effectiveness of assessments in reducing recidivism. A study in the U.S. suggests that assessments can prove useful for offenders and that a majority of offenders complete the amount of treatment recommended by the assessor, with a number of people completing more than the recommended treatment (Baker, Helton, & Boone, 2001). However, a study which evaluated the accuracy of several commonly-used screening instruments found even highly rated screening instruments lack accuracy. Screening methods developed to date cannot accurately predict who will re-offend and who will not. Even the best assessments accurately detected only approximately 70% of recidivist and identified approximately 50% of offenders as problem drinkers (Chang, Gregory & Lapham, 2002). Research also suggests that if an effective assessment can be found it should be ordered prior to sentencing (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: NHTSA, 1996). 6.6 Referral and Treatment Overview The possible conflict of interest for agencies was raised again with regard to the referral for treatment. The main concern raised by agencies is that if they refer offenders to treatment the word will get around that the agency is a referring agency and people will not come to the program. The main concerns of service administrators is that there is never enough time left in the process to refer offenders for treatment and that there are disincentives for agencies to refer offenders to treatment Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators The biggest issue raised by many service administrators in referring offenders for treatment is that the word may get around that their agency refers offenders on to treatment which offenders do not want to attend. One service administrator commented that there is a problem of supply and demand i.e. free-of-charge treatment agencies are overwhelmed by demands on them, and drink driving offenders are low on their list of priorities, so there are big delays in treatment for this group. Many service administrators commented that there seems to be a lot of disincentives for agencies to refer offenders for treatment i.e. losing control over the client and not getting feedback about the client, then this creates more hurdles for clients and an agency will get a name for referring clients to treatment which is a disincentive for clients. A couple of service administrators indicated that they believed there was a definite conflict of interest in the privatized nature of agencies in making money and referral. The problem of immediacy of treatment was raised by one service administrator who suggested that the best solution is to do the program early in the disqualification period, and then have some sort of refresher prior to licence reinstatement. Magistrates Referral and treatment of offenders was not directly discussed with magistrates (nor were they raised by magistrates). Service Providers With regards to the referral process to drink drive agencies, it was widely regarded that DirectLine is a onestop-shop and unique service. One agency indicated that there is no need for DirectLine with the availability of the internet at local libraries being free. Another agency commented that they have no criticism of it - we get as many offenders as we can handle. Some other agencies are critical, but not an issue for me. 34 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

43 Some agencies are concerned that if they refer the offender to a treatment facility the offender may not come back for a second assessment. The majority of the agencies indicated that if offenders came in earlier (i.e. as soon as they are convicted of drink driving), agencies would probably refer more offenders on for treatment. These agencies also indicated that there is never enough time left in the process to refer offenders on to treatment Priority Issues Two priority issues for the referral process were identified in the Victorian program. Firstly, the referral process needs to be reviewed as it appears that offenders are arriving for their first assessment late and secondly agencies are hesitant in referring offenders to treatment in case they do not return to them for a second assessment and this has implications in terms of conflict of interest. On average, education and treatment have a significant positive influence in reducing drink driving, resulting in a 7-9% reduction in recidivism and alcohol-related crashes (Wells-Parker et al., 1995). A recent U.S. policy review states that many recidivists being alcohol dependent, treatment programs should be an essential part of any drink driving strategy (Century Council, 1999). In the U.S., Intensive Supervision Probation is used in a number of states for some repeat offenders with the probation typically lasting two to five years. 6.7 Licence Restoration Process and Unlicensed Driving Overview Both service administrators and magistrates appear to be frustrated by the licence restoration process, although for different reasons. Many service administrators and magistrates believe that the licence restoration process is pushing offenders out of the licensing system due to the hurdles that are in place to get their licence back. Magistrates stated that offenders are coached and tutored into saying the right thing to get their licence back. Some magistrates indicate that they refuse to reinstate offender s licences as they don t believe that they have changed their behaviour Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators Only three service administrators thought that the licence restoration process is going well, the rest were frustrated by the current process. The positive comments made by the three service administrators included it is very thorough and properly done, in the majority, magistrates are on the ball in terms of their responsibility in allowing people to get back on the road and generally speaking I think the court process is not too bad. Many service administrators commented on pushing offenders out of the licensing system to unlicensed driving due to the hurdles that are in place. They are probably driving safely because they don t want to get detected but they are ignoring the penalty and that is anti-social behaviour, which is of concern. Another service administrator suggested that unlicensed offenders are probably not contributing greatly to road trauma. Concern was raised about offenders never receiving follow-up letters from VicRoads about re-licensing. One service administrator commented that there is a problem in the lower socioeconomic group with cost of the program and going back to court being a burden for this group. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 35

44 The majority of service administrators believe that the licence restoration process is fraught with problems. Many consider that the process shouldn t be so punitive but rather rehabilitative and therefore it could be administratively handled by VicRoads. I d like to see these people going through the drug courts when we actually have them going in full swing where their cases are reviewed by magistrates who are doing nothing but drug and alcohol related issues. They do have that mentoring and monitoring service, that there is some follow-up because that is something we don t do well, and there is definitely a need for case management I see more opportunity for that through the drug courts because they are set up with that. One recommendation made by one service administrator in relation to licence restoration was that there is scope for getting service administrators together and sorting out what is realistic and what is expected of assessors and magistrates. The view of some service administrators is that although having the licence restoration order at the magistrates court shows the significance of the offence, it can also be a deterrent to people wanting to get their licence back. The court environment is seen by many service administrators as a very intimidating environment and it potentially leads to more people remaining unlicensed. One service administrator commented that this process actually runs the risk of pushing offenders out of the licensing system. One service administrator suggested that some agencies backdate assessments when offenders have left the assessment too late in the licence restoration process. The licence restoration reports that are completed by drink drive agencies are another source of concern for service administrators. Magistrates The majority of magistrates believe that offenders tell lies to them about their drinking behaviours in order to say the right thing to get their licence back. Many magistrates commented that offenders tell the police a different story from the assessor and yet another story to the magistrate. Quite a few magistrates believe that offenders are coached or tutored in saying the right thing to magistrates to get their licence back, while others believe that this is not the case as offenders are usually genuine. Some magistrates stated that they take very little time with licence restoration reports. A couple of magistrates said that they refuse many offenders in getting their licence back because they are not satisfied that they have changed their behaviour and that it is unlikely that they won t drink and drive. Service Providers Agencies were not directly asked questions related to the licence restoration process and unlicensed driving Priority Issues A priority issue in the Victorian system is that offenders do not have to undertake rehabilitation unless they wish to get their licence re-instated. Stakeholders believe that there could be many offenders driving unlicensed because they choose not to complete an education course and go through the magistrate s court to apply for a licence restoration order. There is evidence in the U.S. that suggests only a small proportion of drink driving offenders, particularly hardcore offenders, reinstate their licence when eligible because the process is time consuming and costly in terms of fees and other requirements (Century Council, 1999). This reluctance by the offender to re-instate their licence poses several threats to addressing the drink driving problem, as well as the unlicensed 36 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

45 driving issue. Firstly, low rates of licence re-instatement weaken the authority of transport departments to motivate safe driving since re-issuance of the licence is the only incentive they can offer (Century Council, 1999). Secondly, offenders lack of interest in driving legally also threatens mandatory interlock laws in Victoria. Additionally, researchers attribute the low incidence of relicence to a perception on the offender s part that the risk of apprehension for driving while suspended is not great enough to justify the hassle of re-instatement (Voas, 2001). A recent study has shown that approximately 88% of first-time offenders whose licences were suspended drove during their suspension period (McCartt, Geary & Nissen, 2002). Additionally, taking a hardcore offender s licence away is often not enough to keep them off the road. Reduction in the number of offenders who drive while suspended, or without a valid licence, is important as research shows these offenders are over-represented in crashes both in Australia (Harrsion, 1997; Watson, 1997; Watson, 2004) and internationally (NHTSA, 1998; Griffin & DeLaZerda, 2000). 6.8 Alcohol Ignition Interlocks and Other Sanctions Overview Interlocks were an area that produced contrary opinions from service administrators and magistrates. Service administrators generally believe that interlocks are a reasonable step to reducing the drink driving problem. Some service administrators suggested that the disqualification period before an interlock could be reduced to get the offender in the rehabilitation process sooner. The majority of magistrates believe that the interlock policy will basically be a waste of time and will increase the number of offenders driving unlicensed. They were also concerned about the added financial burden on lower socioeconomic groups who they see generally as being financially disadvantaged by the current system. Impounding vehicles was rejected as a penalty by all service administrators Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators The recent introduction of Alcohol Ignition Interlocks was discussed in detail by the majority of service administrators. One service administrator stated that the attitudes towards who should have an interlock may change as time goes by. We ve got to take a little bit at a time to make sure the community accepts it to make sure it works. We need to have community acceptance for compliance. Many service administrators thought that interlocks were a very reasonable step, are a nice progression and need to be there for a sufficient time to reduce problem behaviour and are the perfect tool. A couple of service administrators suggested that if everyone had interlocks in all new cars we wouldn t have as big a problem. The fact that interlocks give people mobility was also an aspect that many service administrators thought was positive while still monitoring if offender is doing the right thing. A couple of service administrators suggested that interlocks could be applied to first offenders but accepted that this would be complicated and another suggested that they could argue that interlocks should be more mandatory. We are somewhat surprised that the level of repeat offenders lining up for interlocks seems to be less than expected which is giving us concern about unlicensed driving. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 37

46 Another service administrator made the comment that it is a difficult area to work out between punitive and rehabilitation and where to draw the line while another stated that there is no trade-off with interlocks which may mean that people drive unlicensed. It may not have the scope to have the impact in the broad sense if in fact the numbers that qualify for interlocks is low. It is probably only going to represent a small piece of the pie. Some service administrators had the opinion that there should be no difference in disqualification periods between interlocks and no interlocks, while some service administrators suggested that there is a tradeoff and that it may be better to give offenders a smaller disqualification period if they are having an interlock installed. Sometimes I wonder if you couldn t have that trade-off now..i understand that (the penalties need to be harsh) but if you want to encourage these people to do the right thing, perhaps rehabilitate them, then maybe it would be better to give them a lesser disqualification period and allow them to have an interlock installed. The idea of impounding and offender s vehicle was rejected by all service administrators as a valid sanction for preventing recidivist drink driving. I don t think the community is ready to accept it (impoundment of vehicle) as it is the family s car, while another suggested that it is not achieving what it is intended to because it stops people from driving not from drink driving and offenders can always access a car if they want to. Magistrates Interlock legislation came into effect in May 2002 and therefore the number of offenders who have been placed on interlock orders to date is small. Only a couple of the courts that participated have issued an interlock order to an offender. The majority of magistrates believe that interlocks are a good idea in theory, but many believe that there are many issues that will surface down the track. One magistrate stated we re going to have a lot of unlicensed driving while another stated interlocks are hugely unfair on the low socioeconomic group. There is very little publicity and knowledge in the community about interlocks. One magistrate stated it is pretty scary from a civil libertarian point of view other people also have to drive the car, and another said that it is pretty tough for people who need the car for work although an interlock may be helpful in keeping them working so that they can pay their mortgage and bills and keep their family together. One magistrate was concerned about the readouts of all attempts to start the vehicle as well as being concerned about circumvention and reliability of the device. In terms of the effectiveness of an interlock after it is removed, one magistrate suggested that embarrassment might be a key factor with having to use them as offenders may never want to have it on again and therefore won t drink drive again. Most magistrates believe that some offenders will circumvent the interlock and others will get a passenger to blow into it for them. The issue of an offender owning more than one vehicle or having to drive a vehicle for work was brought up by many magistrates, with one magistrate indicating that it may be very inequitable if some offenders have to purchase 2 or 3 interlocks to put on all the vehicles that they have to drive. This issue was supported by another magistrate who suggested that interlocks are very unfair on poorer people. Service Providers Agencies were not asked any questions relating to alcohol ignition interlocks. 38 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

47 6.8.3 Priority Issues A priority issue for interlocks in Victoria is the need to supply information to magistrates about the operation of the devices and the rationale for the introduction. Many magistrates hold a negative view in relation to cost, equity and circumvention. Magistrates state that they have had little information provided to them since the introduction of the legislation in May 2002 and they have had little experience in dealing with offenders on interlock orders. 6.9 Research Priorities and Development Opportunities Overview The issue of recidivism was suggested to be a key area for further research and development. The need to develop programs to educate probationary licence holders about standard drinks before they gain their full licence. Magistrates were concerned that the community in general is not taking enough responsibility when providing and marketing drinks, particularly high alcoholic drinks to young people Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators A couple of service administrators suggested that the issue of recidivism be explored in further detail. One service administrator indicated that research into personality disorders of recidivists is needed. Another suggested that rural issues in drink driving need more examination. One service administrator suggested that both drink driving and drink walking is not particularly a road safety problem but rather a community problem and that drinking in general needs to be reduced. Re-educating probationary licence holders when they go on to a full licence about standard drinks is an area that a few service administrators suggested needed examination. Other issues that were raised included the use of advertising and legal drinking age. The issue of media campaigns was raised by one service administrator who suggested that anti-drink driving advertisements may work for most people but not for the hard core offender. Another service administrator commented that there is a problem with having legal drinking age coinciding with legal driving age. Magistrates Other issues that were raised by magistrates included the duty of care required by the hotel industry in: a) labelling of drinks in terms of number of standards and b) publicity about drinking and driving. It was also suggested that young people are being targeted by the alcohol industry when marketing high alcoholic drinks. Many magistrates believe that the changing attitude in the workplace with regard to having social drinks has been positive in encouraging people not to drink and drive. There is a mentality that having a licence is a right in the Australian psyche - particularly for or by young males. Licensing was another issue that was raised by some magistrates. Many believed that the licensing system should be national and that all applicants to get a licence should undergo some course to educate them about standard drinks. Service Providers Questions surrounding research priorities and development issues were not asked of agencies. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 39

48 6.9.3 Priority Issues There is a need for research and community outreach in the areas of education about standard drinks and safe driving levels. Duty of care issues for liquor outlets and was also raised. The need to examine the possibility of a national licensing system was also suggested. 40 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

49 7. Discussion and Recommendations 7.1 General Status of Victorian Drink Drive Program Victoria has had a long and impressive record in the provision of programs and legislative initiatives for managing drink driving offenders. It has the most comprehensive approach to this problem in Australia and, with the possible exception of Sweden, the world. This lead role and innovation in approaching the problem of drink driving recidivism continues. It is currently the first state in Australia to introduce the mandatory use of Alcohol Ignition Interlocks with what is informally reported to be excellent uptake. This review has taken these impressive achievements as an indisputable given. In focussing on the experiences of the major stakeholders in the process it has by its nature highlighted some of the down side of this policy. The fact that the basic legislative structure and model has been established for over a decade has constrained the opportunity to respond flexibly to emerging issues and more recent research findings. It has meant that responses and changes have had to be added to an already somewhat complex model. The most noteworthy finding by the research team is that offenders appear to get lost in the process between being charged for a drink driving offence and seeking a licence restoration order. As noted by one service administrator, it is an incredibly fragmented system and the research team has found it to be complicated and disjointed. It is evident from discussions with stakeholders that there is only limited communication between organisations. If the current system is to remain, communication among stakeholders needs to be improved. The research team have had consistent feedback from many stakeholders sharing common concerns about the quality and quantity of information both across and within each professional group. The problems created by the lack of communication problem is highlighted in a recent U.S. Century Council review (1999) in which it is stated that it not only undermines effectiveness of the system but it poses a serious barrier to cooperation, breeding misunderstandings, professional contempt and even blaming (Century Council, 1999). Recommendation 1: A more integrated and coordinated approach to managing offenders through the process from court attendance to re-licensing should be established [VicRoads, Department of Human Services (DHS), Department of Justice]. Recommendation 2: Formal communication strategies and mechanisms between relevant organisations need to be developed [DHS, Courts, VADDS, VicRoads]. 7.2 Legislation, Penalties and Judicial Processes There are too many classes of offenders and this increases complexity. One solution that is emerging internationally is to include a specific classification of hard-core drink driver in the legislation. Simpson, Mayhew, & Bierness (1996) suggest a definition for hard-core drink drivers that includes all multiple offenders and first-time offenders who have a high BAC (i.e. > 0.15%). A high BAC is viewed as an indication that the offender has established a pattern of heavy drinking over a substantial period of time, resulting in sufficient tolerance to be able to reach a BAC of 0.15% or higher (Voas & Fisher, 2001). This definition has been recommended by several safety organisations in the U.S. including The Century Council (2000), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Voas et al., 1999) and the National Transportation Safety Board (2000). DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 41

50 The complex nature of the current Victorian system means that provision of information to offenders needs to be consistent throughout Victoria. There was a perception among stakeholders that the necessary information was not reliably passed on to offenders at court. The research team recommends that an auditing process is undertaken to establish the validity or otherwise of this perception. It is possible that the information may in fact be distributed appropriately at the court but that offenders are not recognising the importance of the information at that time. There is a need to find a better way of providing information to offenders at a time when they are not in the stressful situation of attending court. An age-related criterion for attendance at rehabilitation programs is not justified in the research literature, and as such is confounding and arbitrary. Some research has suggested that offenders aged tend to benefit more from rehabilitation training than older or younger offenders (Davies, Broughton, Harland & Tunbridge, 2000). Either way, little Australian research exists to support the age-related criterion used for the Victorian program. This age limitation is already causing considerable confusion amongst magistrates as evidenced by the major inconsistencies in the sentencing of offenders. Stakeholders reported that many magistrates ask all offenders to undertake the education course when in fact first offenders over the age of 25 with a low BAC are not required by law to do so. Discussions with magistrates about this issue confirmed that many of them were unaware that completion of the education course is not mandatory for this group. Currently, in the directory issued by DHS, VADDS recommends that a first assessment fee (per hour) is $165 and a second assessment fee (per hour) is $175. Added to these costs is the cost of completing an education course, which is recommended to be $185. Since these fees are only recommended fees, agencies are free to vary this fee by whatever amount they choose, therefore they may be higher than the recommended fee. The research team believes that the total cost to offenders is currently a disincentive to offenders completing the program for re-licensing and recommends that consideration be given to reducing the fines to offenders in lieu of completing the assessments. Recommendation 3: There is a need to simplify the present Victorian system of classifying offenders. The use of an inclusive hardcore offender category, which includes all multiple offenders and first-time offenders who have a high BAC (i.e. > 0.15%) should be considered and would be consistent with international recommendations [VicRoads]. Recommendation 4: Provide consistent and clear information to offenders and all stakeholders at court regarding education course attendance and assessments [Department of Justice]. Recommendation 5: Removal of the age-based criterion for attendance at the education course should be considered [VicRoads]. Recommendation 6: Consideration should be given to reducing the fines for offenders who are required to complete assessments, to reduce disincentives for participating in the VDDEP [VicRoads, Department of Justice]. 7.3 Monitoring, Tracking and Mentoring Currently, it appears to the research team that the provision of information to offenders is fraught with problems. Firstly, many offenders are transient and do not update their contact details with VicRoads and therefore do not receive information. Secondly, service providers stated that offenders claim they haven t received the information at the court. Consideration needs to be given to ways of better providing information to offenders to ensure they are aware of what is expected of them and when it is expected (i.e. education courses are required to be completed within 3 months of being notified of this requirement by VicRoads). Also refer to recommendation RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

51 The research team supports the model developed by the Century Council (1999) in the U.S. that Victoria needs a system that can provide a more organized approach to offender information. Such a system should be able to provide the following: Track each offender from arrest through to dismissal or sentence completion Provide aggregate data such as number of arrests, convictions, BAC distribution and offender demographics Ensure data is accurate, complete and reliable Maintain quality control and security features that prevent core and essential data elements and/or impaired driving records from being compromised or corrupted. The research team and many stakeholders believe that the current edition of The Next Step for Driving Offenders is extremely difficult to read and requires revision to ensure it is in Plain English and comprehensible to offenders who may have poor literacy skills. These indexes all point to the same conclusions that readability of text passage and reading ability of the target audience are important factors in message comprehension. Additionally, there are errors in this booklet that need to be corrected (p4. point should be ). One of the most documented criteria in brochure development is the user s ability to comprehend or read the information. Several measures of readability have been developed including Flesch s (1948) Reading Ease Formula, the FOG index (Gunning, 1952), and the SMOG index (McLaughlin, 1969). Recommendation 7: Improve the provision of information to offenders regarding the operation of the VDDEP [DHS, VicRoads, Department of Justice]. Recommendation 8: Implement an integrated records system linking all relevant departments to provide comprehensive and timely information on an offender s progress through the process [DHS, VicRoads, Department of Justice]. Recommendation 9: Revise the booklet The Next Step for Driving Offenders to ensure plain English and a readability level appropriate for offenders [DHS, VicRoads]. 7.4 Education Course The control and management of drink driving through rehabilitation is a complex issue. It requires more systematic approaches than have as yet been realised in Australian jurisdictions. There are a number of core issues that need to be taken into account in any attempt to develop policy or programs in the area. Little research has been conducted to determine the most effective blend of components of combination programs, although recidivism analyses from Wells-Parker et al s (1995) meta-analysis of drink driving interventions indicates that some combination of modalities, in particular those including education, psychotherapy/counselling and some follow-up, such as contact probation, showed larger effect sizes than other modes. A reliable method to involve the wider community is to admit the drink driver to a period of probation combined with other punitive sanctions such as fines and licence suspension (Palk, Sheehan, & Schonfeld, 2003). A drink driving offender is required to abide by a number of conditions including abstaining from violation of the law and submitting to counselling and rehabilitation programs as directed (Palk et al., 2003). The offender is closely monitored and is able to access a variety of other community agencies for assistance in the rehabilitation process (Palk et al., 2003). Intensive supervision programs managed within the probation setting have also DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 43

52 been utilised to manage the more serious offender as an alternative to prison. Antonowicz and Ross (1994) suggest that the essential components of best practice for these programs include a sound conceptual model, usually a cognitive-behavioural approach, multi-faceted programming and targeting needs. These types of programs have been found to be more effective than ordinary probation, recording reductions in recidivism by 21-29% (Palk, 1990). Currently in the Victorian system, all offenders complete the same education course whether they are low BAC first offenders or hard-core offenders (recidivists and high BAC first offender). Traditional education courses for drink drivers focus mainly on providing information about alcohol, the associated risks and its effects as they relate to driving (Popkin, 1994: Sanson-Fisher et al., 1990). The theoretical basis on which these programs are developed assumes that individuals drink and drive due to the lack of knowledge that results in poor decisions being made (Popkin, 1994). This information is presented to assist the offender to avoid future episodes of drink driving (Popkin, 1994). Therefore, such courses are not appropriate for recidivists. The research team recommends that a First Offender Program be introduced for low BAC first offenders (i.e. less than 0.15%) with knowledge content and that a Hard-Core Offender Program such as a combination knowledge and lifestyle program be introduced for repeat offenders and those first offenders with a high BAC (i.e. greater than 0.15%). Although drink drive agencies are prescribed the topics that need to be covered during the 8-hour course, agencies have full discretion as to how they cover those topics and how much time is given to each. In order to provide consistency the manual Driving for Life or similar resource could be selected as the mandatory resource for facilitators to use. The Victorian Association of Drink Drive Services should be commended on their effort supporting agencies and may be assisted in their task if given more formal support. Most drink drive agencies state that they do not have many non-english speaking offenders participating in their education course, but some facilitators indicated that there is a lack in services for these offenders. Hennessy s (1998) evaluation of the VDDEP recommended that VADDS facilitate the production of any necessary teaching materials which are not currently available, including NESB materials. The research team acknowledges that the general provision of such a process and resources would be very expensive for both VADDS and private agencies. Additionally, the research team acknowledges that DHS is dedicated to providing agencies with support to assist them in the delivery of services. The research team recommends that several of the public drink drive services are resourced to cater for non-english speaking offenders and that DirectLine advises offenders from a NESB to attend these locations. Research should be undertaken to follow-up on the claim that there are few requests for courses from NESB people. Recommendation 10: Introduce a two tier system requiring (a) all first offenders with BAC less than 0.15 to attend the existing drink driver course, and (b) all recidivists/high BAC first offenders to attend a combination program (including education, psychotherapy/counselling and follow-up contact/probation) [DHS]. Recommendation 11: Revise educational resources and delivery to provide more structure and consistency. Identify opportunities to further standardise the content and delivery of the course/s [DHS, VicRoads]. Recommendation 12: The availability of interpreter services and resources for non-english speaking offenders (i.e. government agencies to provide services in each area for non-english speaking offenders) should be systematically examined and if necessary improved [DHS, VADDS]. 44 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

53 7.5 Assessments and Reporting Process In the Victorian system, assessments must be undertaken by offenders with a high BAC (higher than 0.15), DUI, or non-bac offence and repeat offenders (within the last 10 years). A major purpose of assessment is to reduce recidivism by determining the nature of an offender s alcohol involvement so appropriate treatment options can be identified and assigned (Century Council, 1999). Research suggests all offenders but at the very least those with a high BAC undergo a complete assessment as early as possible after the arrest so that appropriate sanctions can be applied and the recommended intervention and rehabilitation can begin (Century Council, 1999). The majority of stakeholders commented that most offenders are granted a reduction in time between assessments even though special circumstances are required. The research team recommends that this issue should be followed up with further research and a more systematic scheme developed if the assessment process is to continue. Recommendation 13: If the present system is to continue, consideration needs to be given to conducting assessments and reporting back to the court prior to sentencing hard-core recidivists/high BAC first offenders so that specific needs of the offender can be considered during the sentencing process [DHS]. Recommendation 14: Research should be undertaken to examine the effectiveness of the current assessment process including the issue of reduction in time between assessments granted to offenders by magistrates [VicRoads]. 7.6 Referral and Treatment Brief interventions for alcohol use disorders have been the focus of extensive research over the past few decades. They have been shown to reduce alcohol consumption in heavy drinkers as well as being inexpensive and able to be included in rehabilitation programs. Brief motivational interventions are generally targeted at hazardous drinkers whose level of alcohol consumption places them at risk of experiencing problems associated with their drinking (Royal College of Physicians, 2001) and are focused on changing behaviour and increasing compliance with therapy (Fleming & Baier Manwell, 1999). The reduction of small amounts such as one standard drink in daily consumption levels may have a significant impact in terms of the overall morbidity rates of populations generally. The effectiveness of brief interventions does not appear to differ between males and females, with only one study (Sanchez-Craig, 1990) suggesting that they may be more effective for women than for men. Brief interventions are usually short (5-20 minutes) focused counselling sessions that incorporate four main components: motivational techniques, feedback about the problems associated with alcohol, and setting recommended drinking limits (Fiellin, Reed, & O Connor, 2000). A successful brief intervention will move a person from the pre-contemplation stage, characterised by an unawareness of the adverse effects of alcohol, to the action stage, characterised by behaviour to decrease or discontinue alcohol consumption (Fiellin et al., 2000). The inclusion of a brief intervention at the re-licensing stage is recommended as an addition to the education course. This could be given for example, by a trained staff member at VicRoads when the offender arrives to be re-licensed. The offender would have to be informed of this brief intervention to allow time for this intervention as well as the re-issue of their licence. A court designed to specifically deal with drink driving offenders could provide extended judicial monitoring of hard-core offenders and close supervision from magistrates and drink drive agencies, including regular BAC testing and offender accountability (Century Council, 1999). The drug court model first emerged in the U.S. in the late 1980 s to deal with less serious offenders through DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 45

54 diversionary programs. By the late 1990 s most U.S. drug courts had established probation-based and post-plea programs for offenders with more serious criminal histories and long-term drug use. Currently in Australia, drug courts have been specially set up to sentence people who have pleaded guilty to certain drug-related offences in the Magistrates Court. This court offers offenders the chance to take part in an intensive drug rehabilitation order (IDRO) as an alternative to prison. Offenders then return to the court for final sentencing. The final sentence takes into account participation in the program and any rewards or sanctions (punishments) that have been given during the program. In the first 40 months of the drug court s operation in Queensland, no one who successfully completed the rehabilitation program went to jail. Instead, they received communitybased sentencing options like probation (Department of Justice and Attorney-General, 2003). By combining alcohol treatment with ongoing judicial supervision, such courts seek to break the cycle of addiction, crime, and repeat incarceration (Rempel et al., 2003). Some service administrators have suggested that similar outcomes may be able to be achieved if drink driving offences were heard in these courts. Recommendation 15: Consideration be given to the development and implementation of a trial booster program (brief intervention for alcohol) as part of the re-licensing requirements for all offenders [DHS, VicRoads]. Recommendation 16: Examine the feasibility of drink driving offences heard in the Drug Courts or similar specialised courts to enable offenders to be processed with regard to their individual rehabilitation needs [Department of Justice, VicRoads]. 7.7 Licence Restoration Process and Unlicensed Driving VicRoads regulatory responsibilities are limited to ensuring that people who are seeking licensing fulfil the legislative requirements. There is a need to adopt a broader perspective to managing drink drivers prior to the time of re-licensing particularly because the model used does not manage offenders from an overall road safety perspective. The key issue here is that as part of the relicensing process, only offenders that intend to reinstate their licence are required to attend an education course and this leaves an unknown number who drop out of the system and are potentially very high risk drivers. The current Victorian drink driving system by design only attracts persons who do not want to drive unlicensed as rehabilitation is independent of the sentencing system but is an administrative requirement for re-licensing. That is, those persons who are eligible for re-licensing and motivated to stay in or rejoin the system. It is also more likely to attract persons who are employed or seeking employment in a position that requires a licence. The alternative approach is to adopt a judicial approach in which an offender is required as part of the sentencing for the index offence to undertake a rehabilitation program. This may be a voluntary or semi-voluntary requirement where the magistrate is encouraged to reduce or cancel the relevant fine in lieu of the offender paying a given amount for attendance at a rehabilitation program. Approaches used in the U.S. where most program evaluation has been undertaken appear to adopt the judicial model (in which an offender is required as part of the sentencing for the index offence to undertake a rehabilitation program) though with mandatory application. It is likely that the Victorian (administrative) model is accessed by different types of offenders to those offenders who would participate under a judicial model and this in turn may have a direct impact on the outcome effectiveness of programs. Viewed within the field of general deterrence methods, RBT is designed to influence the decision to drink and drive through increasing the perceived risk of apprehension. Research evidence has supported the use of deterrence in individuals who believe there is a high probability of being apprehended (Harrison, 1996; Sheehan, 1994; Turrisi & Jaccard, 1992). Recent research by Watson 46 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

55 (2002, 2004) has highlighted the need to improve the detection of unlicensed and disqualified driving. A study of over 300 unlicensed driving offenders in Queensland found that over one-third were pulled over by the police for an RBT during the time they were driving unlicensed, but didn t have their licence checked. This experience of punishment avoidance proved a significant predictor of the frequency of unlicensed driving. Current legislation in Victoria does not allow police manning Booze Buses to check licences but there is an opportunity for local police to set up a random licence check station at a location close to the Booze Bus. It is recognised that this would have resource implications for police and might lead to a decrease in the number of drivers tested at each RBT site. Recommendation 17: Undertake research to determine the extent of unlicensed driving among offenders who fail to apply for licence re-instatement [VicRoads]. Recommendation 18: Introduce changes to legislation to require offenders (particularly hard-core recidivists) to complete a rehabilitation program as part of the penalty rather than as a requirement for re-licensing [VicRoads]. Recommendation 19: Increase the deterrence of driving while suspended, disqualified or cancelled by increasing the perception of risk of apprehension by implementing compulsory licence checks for all traffic offences and random checks at a location close to RBT stations (i.e. Booze Buses) [VicRoads, Victoria Police]. 7.8 Alcohol Ignition Interlocks The interlock legislation has only recently be introduced in Victoria and therefore is in the early stages of implementation. The research team believe it is difficult to make specific recommendations at this time and the interlocks implementation in Victoria will need to be examined in-depth in the next few years. Comprehensive Canadian research suggests that an optimal result from interlock use requires associated rehabilitation and probationary mentoring. Inclusion of a booster education rehabilitation program for recidivists just prior to returning to a full licence requires further examination. The research team recommend that offenders required to drive with an interlock should have the booster program twice as soon as they are convicted and just before the interlock is removed. However, the research team believe it is difficult to make specific recommendations at this point in time and that this issue will require further research. Discussions with magistrates revealed that they know very little about the introduction of interlocks into the Victorian drink driving system. The research team recommends another conference day whereby magistrates are provided more detailed information about interlocks, including ability to circumvent the interlock and the availability of financial support for offenders in the lower socioeconomic group. Recommendation 20: A mentoring program should be provided to assist offenders with an interlock condition [VicRoads]. Recommendation 21: More detailed information about interlocks should be provided to magistrates and staff who deal with drink driving offenders [VicRoads]. Recommendation 22: The feasibility of a booster program for recidivists when they apply to VicRoads to have the I condition removed from their licence after they obtain an Interlock Condition Removal Order (ICR) from the magistrates court should be investigated [VicRoads]. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 47

56 7.9 Research Priorities and Development Opportunities One of the most serious issues that the research team identified is that there is a lack of data available that accurately shows the exact numbers of offenders at each point in the system. For example, we could not easily determine the number of offenders who do not re-instate their licence after a drink driving conviction. The research team suggests that research should be undertaken to follow up on a drink driving cohort in Victoria to provide an accurate understanding of the history of offenders returning and not returning to the licensing system. There are serious unplanned outcomes if the current process leads to an increase in the number of offenders driving unlicensed as a result of withdrawing from the system. A comprehensive Victorian database could provide this important information. Recommendation 23: Conduct a quantitative analysis with a cohort of offenders to track offenders and evaluate outcomes of the current system [VicRoads, DHS]. 48 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

57 References Antonowicz, D.H., and Ross, R.R. (1994). Essential components of successful rehabilitation programs of offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38, Babor, T.F. & Higgins-Biddle, J.C. (2000). Alcohol screening and brief intervention: Dissemination strategies for medical practice and public health. Addiction, 95 (5), Bailey, J.P.M. & Bailey, K.H. (2000). Hard core drink drivers in New Zealand. In Proceedings 15 th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs & Traffic Safety. Stockholm, Sweden: ICADTS. Baker, D., Helton, K. & Boone, J. (2001). Driving While Impaired (DWI) substance abuse assessment report. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Beck, K.H., Rauch, W.J. & Baker, E.A. (1997). The effects of alcohol ignition interlock license restrictions on multiple alcohol offenders: A randomized trial in Maryland. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Annecy, France: CEMRT. Beirness, D.J., Simpson, H.M. & Mayhew, D.R. (1997). Evaluation of administrative licence suspension and vehicle impoundment programs in Manitoba. Ontario, Canada: Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Department. Chang, I., Gregory, C. & Lapham, S.C. (2002). Review of screening instruments and procedures for evaluating DWI offenders. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Century Council. (1999). Combating hardcore drunk driving: A sourcebook of promising strategies, laws and programs. Washington, DC: The Century Council. Century Council. (2000). National hardcore drunk driving project state guidelines Briefing papers. Washington, DC: The Council. Commonwealth Department of Veterans Affairs. (2002). Creating opportunities for reducing alcohol related harm in the Veteran community: Alcohol screening and brief intervention. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Veterans Affairs. Conigrave, K.M. & Carseldine, D.C.A. (1996). The New South Wales driver assessment program: A pilot program for assessment of drink drivers. Drug and Alcohol Review, 15, Davids, G.P., Broughton, J., Harland, D.G. & Tunbridge, R. (2000). Drink/driver rehabilitation courses in England and Wales. Berkshire: Transport Research Laboratory. DeLeon, G., Melnick, G. & Kressel, D. (1997). Motivation and readiness for therapeutic community treatment among cocaine and other drug abusers. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 23, Department of Human Services. (1998). Victorian Drink Driver Education Program: Procedures and standards manual. Melbourne: Drug Treatment Services Aged, Community and Mental Health Division, Department of Human Services. Department of Human Services. (2002). Victorian Accredited Driver Education Programs: Drink Driver Program. Revised standards. Drugs Policy and Services Branch, Rural and Regional Health and Aged Care Services. Department of Justice and Attorney-General. (2003). Introduction to the drug court (south-east Queensland). DeYoung, D.J. (1997). An evaluation of the effectiveness of alcohol treatment, driver license actions and jail terms in reducing drunk driving recidivism in California. Addiction, 92 (8), DeYoung, D.J. (1999). An evaluation of the specific deterrent effects of vehicle impoundment on suspended, revoked, and unlicensed drivers in California. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, DiClemente, C.C., Bellino, L.E. & Neavins, T. (1999). Motivation for change and alcoholism treatment. Alcohol Research and Health, 23 (2), DiClemente, C.C. & Prochaska, J.O. (1998). Toward a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change: Stages of change and additive behaviours. In W.R. Miller and N. Heather (eds.). Treating addictive behaviours (2 nd Ed.). New York, USA: Plenum Press. Drummond, A., Sullivan, G. & Cavallo, A. (1992). An evaluation of the Random Breath Testing initiative in Victoria : Quasi-experimental time series approach. Report No. 37. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 49

58 Dwyer, B. & Bolton, K. (1998). Dying for a drink: Drink driver education as part of the Northern Territory s response to road crashes involving alcohol. Presented at the Road Safety Conference, Research Policing and Education Wellington, New Zealand. Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS). (1997). Profile of unlicensed motorists in fatal crashes. Monograph 20. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety. Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS). (1998). The history of road fatalities in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety. Fell, J.C. (1990). Drinking and driving in America: Disturbing facts; encouraging reductions. Alcohol Health and Research World, 14 (1), 18. Ferguson, M., Schonfeld, C., Sheehan, M. & Siskind, V. (2001). The impact of the Under the Limit drink driving rehabilitation program on the lifestyle and behaviour of offenders. Report to the Federal Office of Road Safety. Report No. CR 187. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety. Ferguson, M., Sheehan, M., Davey, J. & Watson, B. (1999). Drink driving rehabilitation: The present context. Report to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Report No. CR 184. Canberra, Australia: Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Fiellin, D.A., Reid M.C., O Connor, P.G. (2000) Screening for alcohol problems in primary care: A systematic review. Archives of International Medicine, 160(3): Fitzpatrick, J.L. (1992). Problems in the evaluation of treatment programs for drunk drivers: Goals and outcomes. Journal of Drug Issues, 22 (1), Fleming, M. & Manwell, L. B. (1999) Brief Intervention in Primary Care Settings: A Primary Treatment Method for At-Risk, Problem, and Dependent Drinkers. Alcohol Research and Health, 23, 2. Flesch, R. (1948). The art of readable writing. New York: Harper and Row. Griffin, L.I. & DeLaZerda, S. (2000). Unlicensed to kill. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Grosvenor, D., Toomey, T. & Wagenaar, A. (1999). Deterrence and the adolescent drinking driver. Journal of Safety Research, 30 (3), Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw Hill. Hall, W. (1997). The role of legal coercion in the treatment of offenders with alcohol and heroin problems. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 30 (2), Harrison, W. A. (1996). An exploratory investigation of aspects of drink-driving and enforcement in rural areas of Victoria. Monash University Accident Research Centre. Report 93. Harrison, W. A. (1997). An exploratory investigation of the crash involvement of disqualified drivers and motorcyclists. Journal of Safety Research, 28 (2), Heather, N. (2000). Psychological treatment approaches and the findings of Project MATCH. In M. Plant and D. Cameron (eds.). The Alcohol Report. London, Britain: Free Association Books. Hedlund, J. (1995). Who is the persistent drinking driver? Part I: USA Transportation Research Circular, 437, Hennessy, M. (1998). Process evaluation of the Victorian Drink Driver Program. A report prepared for the Drug Treatment Services Unit, Aged, Community and Mental Health Division, Department of Human Services. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Human Services. Holmwood, C. (2002). Alcohol-related problems in Australia: Is there a role for general practice? Medical Journal of Australia, 177 (2), Institute of Medicine. (1990). Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, USA: National Academy Press. Isaac, N.E. (1995). Media approaches to the persistent drinking driver. Transportation Research Circular, 437, Jones, R.K. & Lacey, J.H. (1991). Review of the literature evaluating the effect of countermeasures to reduce alcohol impaired driving ( ). Springfield, USA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Longest, D. (1999). Judicial and administrative ignition interlock programs in the United States. Paper presented at the Australasian Conference on Drug Strategy, Adelaide, Australia. Macdonald, S. & Dooley, S. (1993). A case-control study of driving-while-impaired offenders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 33 (1), Mann, R.E., Vingilis, E.R., Gavin, D., Adl af, E. & Anglin, L. (1991). Sentence severity and the drinking driver: Relationship with traffic safety outcome. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23, RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

59 Marques, P.R., Tippetts, A.S., Voas, R.B. & Beirness, D.J. (2001). Predicting repeat DUI offenses with the alcohol interlock recorder. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, Marques, P.R., Voas, R.B. & Hodgins, D. (1998). Vehicle interlock programs: Protecting the community against the drunk driver. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 17 (1), McArthur, D.L. & Kraus, J.F. (1999). The specific deterrence of administrative per se laws in reducing drunk driving recidivism. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16, McCartt, A.T., Geary, L.L. & Nissen, W.J. (2002). Observational study of the extent of driving while suspended for alcohol impaired driving. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. McKnight, J.A. & Voas, R.B. (1991). The effect of license suspension upon DWI recidivism. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 7, McLaughlin, H. (1969). Smog grading - A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 22, Miller, W.R., Benefield, R.G. & Tonigan, J.S. (1993). Enhancing motivation for change in problem drinking: A controlled comparison for two therapist styles. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61 (3), Miller, W.R. & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behaviour. New York, USA: The Guilford Press. Miller, W.R. & Tonigan, J. S. (1996). Assessing drinkers motivation for change: The stages of change readiness and treatment eagerness scale (SOCRATES). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 10, Moloney, M. & Palaia, D. (1997). A study of drink driving and recidivism in the state of Victoria, Australia, during the fiscal years 1992/ /96. In Proceedings of the 14 th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Anncey, France: CEMRT. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1996). The highway safety desk book. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1998). California impounds the vehicles of motorists caught driving without a valid licence. Traffic Tech, 180. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Transportation Safety Board. (2000). Actions to reduce fatalities, injuries, and crashes involving the hard core drinking driver (Report No. 7256). Washington, DC: NTSB. Newman, S., DiPietro, G., Catchpole, J., Stephenson, W. & Taylor, R. (2002). Development of the NSW Safe Driver Program. Final report to the New South Wales Road and Traffic Authority. Melbourne, Australia: ARRB. Newstead, S., Cameron, M.H., Gantzer, S. & Vulcan, A.P. (1995). Modelling of some major factors influencing road trauma trends in Victoria Report No. 74. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Nichols, J.L. & Ross, H.L. (1990). The effectiveness of legal sanction in dealing with drinking drivers. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 6, Palk, G. R. M. (1990). An intensive supervision and behaviour modification program for adult probationers. Presented at the Annual Association of Social Psychologists, Gold Coast, Queensland. Palk, G. R. M., Sheehan, M., & Schonfeld, C. (2003). Review of the Under the Limit drink driving rehabilitation program. Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland. Queensland University of Technology. Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee. (1997). Compulsory BAC testing. Report No. 22. Legislative Assembly of Queensland. Peck, R.C. (1991). The general and specific deterrent effects of DUI sanctions: A review of California s experience. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 7, Popkin, C.L. (1994). The deterrent effect of education on DWI recidivism. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 10 (3-4), Popkin, C.L., Stewart, J.R., Martell, C. & Birckmayer, J.D. (1992). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the interlock in preventing recidivism in a population of multiple DWI offenders. North Carolina, USA: The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. Rempel, M., Fox-Kralstein, D., Cissner, A., Cohen, R., Labriola, M., Farole, D., Bader, A. & Magnani, M. (2003). The New York state adult drug court evaluation: Policies, participants and impacts. New York: New York State Unified Court System and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 51

60 Robertson, R. & Simpson, H. (2003). DWI system improvements: Stopping the revolving door. Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation. Rollnick, S., Heather, N., Gold, R. & Hall, W. (1992). Development of a short readiness to change questionnaire for use in brief, opportunistic interventions among excessive drinkers. British Journal of Addictions, 87, Ross, H.L. (1991). License deprivation as a drunk-driver sanction. Alcohol Drugs and Driving, 7, Ross, H.L. (1992a). Are DWI sanctions effective? Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 8 (1), Ross, H.L. (1992b). Confronting drunk driving: Social policy for saving lives. New Haven, U.S.A: Yale University Press. Royal College of Physicians (2001). Alcohol can the NHS afford it? A report of a working party of the Royal College of Physicians, London. Ryan, G.A., Ferrante, A.M., Loh, N. & Cercarelli, L.R. (1996). Repeat drink driving offenders in Western Australia, Report to the Federal Office of Road Safety. Report CR 168. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Sadler, D.D., Perrine, M.W. & Peck, R.C. (1991). The long-term traffic safety impact of a pilot alcohol abuse treatment as an alternative to license suspensions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23 (4), Sanchez-Craig, M. (1990). Brief didactic treatment for alcohol and drug-related problems: An approach based on client choice. British Journal of Addiction 85(2): Sanson-Fisher, R., Redman, S., Homel, R., & Key, W. (1990). Drink driver rehabilitation programs An Australian perspective. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 6(3-4), Sheehan, M. (1994). Alcohol controls and drink driving: The social context. Report to the Federal Office of Road Safety. Report CR 142. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Sheehan, M., Schonfeld, C. & Davey, J. (1995). A community based prevention/rehabilitation program for drink drivers in a rural region: Under the Limit. Report CR 156. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Simpson, H.M. (1995). Who is the persistent drinking driver? Part II: Canada and elsewhere. In J.W. Hall. Strategies for dealing with the persistent drinking driver. Transportation Research Circular. No Washington, USA: Transportation Research Board National Research Council. Simpson, D.D. & Joe, G. (1993). Motivation as a predictor of early dropout from drug abuse treatment. Psychotherapy, 30 (2), Simpson, H.M., Mayhew, D. & Bieirness, D.J. (1996). Dealing with hard core drinking drivers. Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation. Siskind, V. (1996). Does license disqualification reduce reoffence rates? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28 (4), Siskind, V., Sheehan, M., Schonfeld, C. & Ferguson, M. (2000). The impact of the Under the Limit drink driving rehabilitation program on traffic safety: An outcome evaluation of Under the Limit. Report CR 186. Canberra, Australia: Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Smith, D.I. & Maisey, G. (1990). Survey of driving by disqualified and suspended drivers in Western Australia. Report CR 94. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety. Stewart, K. (1995). Streamlined vehicle-based sanctions: Specific and general deterrence effects. Transportation Research Circular, 437, Transport Accident Commission. (2003). Transportation Research Board. (1995). Strategies for dealing with the persistent drinking driver. Transportation Research Board Circular. No 437. Washington, USA. Transportation Research Board National Research Council. Tornros, J. (1994). Drink driving countermeasures: A review of the literature. VTI Rapport 384A. Sweden: Swedish Road and Transport Research Literature. Turrisi, R. & Jaccard, J. (1992). Cognitive and attitudinal factors in the analysis of alternatives to drunk driving. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 53(5): Vingilis, E. & Coultes, B. (1990). Mass communications and drinking-driving: Theories, practice and results. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 6, Voas, R.B., Marques, P.R., Tippetts, A.S. & Beirness, D.J. (1999). The Alberta interlock program: The evaluation of a province-wide program on DUI recidivism. Addiction, 94(12), Voas, R.B. (2001). Can state motor vehicle departments control unlicensed drivers? Impaired Driving Update. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute Inc. 52 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

61 Voas, R.B. & Fisher, D.A. (2001). Court procedures for handling intoxicated drivers. Alcohol Research and Health, 25(1), VicRoads. (2002). Laws and penalties for drink driving in Victoria. Information Bulletin. Victorian Government. (2002). Alcohol interlocks in Victoria. Arrive Alive. Ward, T. (2000). Reducing recidivism in driving while disqualified: A treatment evaluation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27 (5), Watson, B. (1997). The crash involvement of unlicensed drivers in Queensland. Proceedings of the 1997 Road Safety Research and Enforcement Conference (Session 2.3, Paper 3). Hobart: Department of Transport. Watson B. (1998). The effectiveness of drink driving licence actions, remedial programs and vehicle-based sanctions. In Proceedings of the 19 th ARRB Research Conference. Melbourne, Australia: ARRB. Watson, B. (2002). A survey of unlicensed driving offenders Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference Proceedings (pp ). Adelaide: Transport SA. Watson, B. (2003). The road safety implications of unlicensed driving: A survey of unlicenced drivers. Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland. Brisbane, Australia: CARRS-Q. Watson, B. (2004). The psychosocial characteristics and on-road behaviour of unlicensed drivers. PhD Thesis. Brisbane: Centre for Accident research and Road Safety Queensland, Queensland University of Technology. Weinrath, M. (1997). The ignition interlock program for drunk drivers: A multivariate test. Crime and Delinquency, 43 (1), Wells-Parker, E. (1994). Mandated treatment: Lessons from research with drinking and driving offenders. Alcohol Health and Research World, 18 (4), Wells-Parker, E., Bangert-Drowns, R., McMillen, R. & Williams, M. (1995). Final results from a meta-analysis of remedial interventions with drink/drive offenders. Addiction, 90, Wells-Parker, E. & Popkin, C. (1994). Deterrence and rehabilitation: Rehabilitation and screening research needs for the next decade. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 23 (2), Williams, A., Weinberg, K. & Fields, M. (1991). The effectiveness of administrative license suspension laws. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 7, Wilson, P.R. (1996). The social, psychological and offending characteristics of the recidivist drink driver. In Proceedings from the Drink Driving Summit. Adelaide, Australia: Department of Transport. DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 53

62 Appendices Appendix 1 Ethical Considerations Information statements were given to service providers and magistrates before the interview proceeded and in the case of drink drive agencies, information sheets were attached to mailed questionnaires. This information statement explained the project and the voluntary nature of participation. Participants were informed that they could discontinue participation at any time without comment or penalty and that any information they provided during the interview would be completely confidential. The information sheet also contained a contact telephone number of the UHREC if service providers had any problems with the ethical conduct of the research being undertaken. For interviews with service providers and magistrates, a consent script was completed by the researcher conducting the interview. Consent was implied by drink drive agencies if they returned the questionnaire completed. Permission to tape the interview so that transcripts could be used for reference was sought from service providers only. Those service providers who did not give permission to have the interview taped could still continue to take part in the interview if they wished. Those service providers that agreed to have the interview taped were informed that they would be provided with a copy of the transcript to ensure the accuracy of their comments. The researcher conducting the interview then completed the verbal consent script indicating that the service provider had agreed to proceed with the interview. 54 RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 05/01

63 Appendix 2 List of Service Administrators Mark Hennessy Public Health & Safety Consultant Dana Saint Marisa De Cicco Gavin Disbury Peter Keogh Martin Boorman Vic Little Eric Tyssen Madonna Devaney Effie Moraitis Project Officer, Department of Justice Director - Justice Policy, Department of Justice Coyne-Didsbury Consulting Psychologists Superintendent, Traffic Support Division, Victoria Police Inspector, Traffic Alcohol Section, Victoria Police Senior Sergeant, Traffic Alcohol Section, Victoria Police Telephone Service Unit Manager, Turning Point Turning Point Turning Point David Healy General Manager - Road Safety, Transport Accident Commission Samantha Cockfield Manager - Road Safety, Transport Accident Commission Alex Douglas Marion Simmonds Kirsty Terry Eric Howard Jeff Potter Jan Lyttle Sue Stanley Mark Kelly Linda Moore Beverley Garratt Sharon Murphy Kerryn Terry Megan Behr Leonie Mudge Pat Rogers Executive Officer, Road Safety Committee of Victoria Manager - Forensic Drug Treatment Operations, DHS Senior Policy Officer - Drugs Policy & Services, DHS General Manger - Road Safety, VicRoads Manager - Road User Behaviour, VicRoads Senior Policy Officer, VicRoads Executive Officer, Victorian Association of Drink Driver Services President, Victorian Association of Drink Driver Services Community Correctional Services Community Correctional Services Community Correctional Services Community Correctional Services Community Correctional Services The Alfred Hospital Drink Driver Services Assessment DRINK DRIVER REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION IN VICTORIA 55

64 Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) Ltd ABN Princes Highway Noble Park North, Victoria 3174 Australia Telephone (03) Facsimile (03)