The relative effectiveness of sanctions applied to first-time drunken driving offenders

We selected for study drivers who were sentenced either to jail or a certified driver intervention program (DIP) in Franklin County, Ohio, in 1987 after their first drunken driving (DUI) conviction. Because each drunken driving charge was assigned to one of a pool of 15 judges with widely varying sentencing patterns, there was no apparent bias in subject allocation to the two treatments. For the jailed (n = 124) and DIP (n = 218) cohorts, we compared the likelihood of subsequent impaired driving, as evidenced by rearrest for a new alcohol-related driving offense or involvement in a car crash after drinking in the 4 years following the study-selected event. After controlling for potentially important covariates, such as gender, age, race, blood alcohol concentration, additional charges filed at the time of arrest, and driving history, we derived logistic regression results indicating that DIP attendees had significantly lower rates of subsequent impaired driving. Drivers who had no prior history of at least one non-DUI alcohol-related offense were significantly more likely to display additional impaired driving when jailed as opposed to those enrolled in a DIP (odds ratio [OR] = 2.53, confidence interval [CI] = 1.44, 4.45), while those with previous alcohol-related offenses may have fared better in jail (OR = .56, CI = .11, 2.76). Drivers younger than 21 years of age were also at elevated risk for repeat offenses (OR = 2.46, CI = 1.13, 5.35). DIPs appear most effective when used for persons who have not had previous alcohol-related crashes or driving offenses.