A driving record analysis of suspension and revocation effects on the drinking-driving offender

Acrid. Am/ & Pwv Vol. 16. No 516. pp. 333-338. 1984 lxYJ1--1575~81 $?W * .w

Prmted ,n the U.S.A. Perpmon Prw Ltd

A DRIVING RECORD ANALYSIS OF SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION EFFECTS ON THE

DRINKING-DRIVING OFFENDER?

RICKEY L. WILLIAMS, ROGER E. HAGEN and EDWARD J. MCCONNELL California Department of Motor Vehicles P.O. Box 11828, Sacramento, CA 95813, U.S.A.

(Received 12 October 1981; in revisedform 18 December, 1983)

Abstract-Past studies have demonstrated that license suspension or revocation reduces subsequent DUI convictions and traffic accidents of multiple DUI offenders to a greater degree than jail sentences and fines alone, or participation in an alternative alcohol abuse treatment program. This study describes the duration of the impact of recidivism-level-specific licensing actions on DUI offenders at three recidivism levels. Results indicate that the first DUI offender (who receives no licensing action) represents a DUI recidivism and accident risk comparable to the suspended second DUI offender during the year following their respective DUI convictions. Furthermore, additional record entries indicate that at least 32% of suspended second offenders drive during the period of the licensing action; at least 61% of revoked third offenders acquire a record entry during the licensing action. In addition to the results, major program recommendations concerning the first offender and the use of restricted licenses are outlined.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous countermeasures have been developed during the past 10 yr to reduce both the incidence of drunk driving and alcohol-related traffic accidents. Countermeasures targeting recidivism of an offender arrested and convicted of drunk driving (DUI) have included the singular or combined use of fines, jail sentences, licensing actions, education, and a variety of alcohol abuse treatments.

It is assumed that repeated DUI convictions are associated with elevated accident risk and an increased potential for continued recidivism. Therefore, the severity of the selected countermeasure(s) is usually determined by whether the current conviction has been preceded by prior drunk driving convictions in a relatively short period of time. As an example, California basically distinguishes between the following offender groups when applying traffic safety countermeasures: (1) first conviction, (2) second conviction in 5 yr, and (3) third-plus conviction in 7 yr.

In the case of multiple DUI offenders, the only traffic safety countermeasure evidencing statistically significant reduction of subsequent accident and conviction frequency at present has been the mandatory imposition of a license suspension or revocation. Three California studies using rigorous evaluative procedures have demonstrated that the mandatory application of a license suspension (12 months) or revocation (36 months) in conjunction with fines and/or jail sentences evidences more traffic safety impact than the singular use of fines and/or jail sentences or the alternative use of a 1Zmonth alcohol abuse treatment program [Epperson et al., 1975; Hagen, 1978; Hagen et al., 19791. In general, multiple DUI offenders receiving the licensing actions in addition to fines and/or jail sentences evidenced at least 30% fewer accidents and convictions than similar drivers receiving only fines and/or jail sentences. The treatment effect associated with licensing action lasted approx. 42 months on DUI recidivism and 48 months on subsequent accident involvement. Further, multiple offenders receiving the mandated actions as opposed to participating in a 12-month program for alcohol abuse generally evidenced 30% fewer convictions and accidents while under licensing action than drivers participating in the treatment program. Reduced driving exposure was suggested as the principal component of the treatment effect associated with the licensing actions. The California results were reinforced by an Australian study which reported that license disqualification is an effective countermeasure to receiving additional traffic convictions after the drunk driving offense

tThis is a condensed version of a technical report titled “Suspension and Revocation Effects on the DUI Offender” (CAL-DMV-RSS-80-75).

333

334 R. L. WILLIAMS et al.

[Homel, 19761. The Australian study also supported the use of high fines but not imprisonment. In fact, drivers jailed for 6 months or longer for drunk driving evidenced the highest rate of reconviction subsequent to release.

First offenders seldom received a licensing action in California prior to January 1982. License restrictions currently are used for this offender group in conjunction with a first offender treatment program. Referral to treatment is at judicial discretion. Those first offenders who do not participate receive a mandatory 6-month suspension. A previous study [Johns and Pascarella, 19711 suggests that such an approach increases the proportion of DUI arrests resulting in DUI convictions and decreases the proportion of DUI arrests reduced to convictions for reckless driving. The traffic safety results, although based on a pre- post-adjudication design, and limited to small samples, suggest that restricted DUI first offenders have no more accidents, but more subsequent DUI convictions than randomly

selected drivers.

METHODOLOGY

The survival analyses for first, second, and third-plus offenders involved the identification of all drivers having a reported DUI conviction during 1974. A 10% sample (N = 4594) was randomly selected from this group. Driver record printouts for each of the selected drivers were obtained in March, 1979, and DUI offender status at the time of the 1974 conviction was determined. Specifically, a driver was judged as a third offender when the 1974 DUI constituted the third or more offense in a 7-yr period prior to the 1974 offense. The driver was considered a second offender if the offense was only the second in a S-yr period. Finally, the driver was deemed a first offender if no other DUI convictions were on the record during the 7-or 5-yr periods. In addition to the categorization criteria, it was also necessary that the third offender have received a 36-month revocation, the second offender a 1Zmonth license suspension, and the first offender no licensing action. The 106 drivers not satisfying these two sets of selection criteria were excluded from the analysis.

The following data were obtained for each of the 4488 drivers for the 4-yr period subsequent to the 1974 conviction: (i) Number of days until the violation date of the next reported DUI conviction; (ii) Number of days until the next reported accident; (iii) Number of days until next driver record update (update is either accident, conviction, failure to appear [FTA] in court, or failure to pay) [FTP].

Survival rates were computed quarterly. The term survival rate is adopted from biomedical applications [Cutler and Ederer, 1958; Merrel and Shulman, 19551. In the present context, survivors are drivers who do not incur a driver record update for the particular type of conviction or accident in question. Once drivers incur the conviction or accident in question, they are removed from the analysis. The advantages of this type of analysis as opposed to the statistical comparison of means are that it permits an estimate of the duration of any treatment effect (or in this sense, duration of differential risk) and it is not affected by outliers, such as a driver who may collect numerous convictions and/or accidents in a compressed time period. The quarterly survival rates were converted to annual rates for easier summarization. Proportional tests using a 2 statistic [Ferguson, 19661 were conducted annually for the 4-yr follow-up period. It should be noted that these are not independent statistical tests and proper caution should be exercised when interpreting the results.

RESULTS

A total of 4488 drivers were studied. Of these, 1769 were first offenders who did not receive a licensing action (suspension or revocation), 1808 were second offenders who received a 12-month suspension, and 911 were third offenders who received a 36-month revocation. Mean ages for first, second, and third offenders were 36, 38, and 40, resp. All three groups were predominantly male (87, 91 and 95% for the three offender groups).

DUI and accident survival rate analyses

As can be seen in Table I, during the first year, the first offenders had the lowest DUI

Suspension and revocation effects on the drinking-driving offender

Table 1. Percentage of drivers not being involved in a subsequent DUI, by year and offender group, and Z-scores on tests of differences in survival rates between groups

YEAR

OFFENDER GROUP 1 2 3 4

First offender(l) 81.9% 76.2% 70.8% 67.9%

Second offender(2) 88.3% 78.3% 70.7% 66.0%

Third or subsequent offender(3) 84.2% 73.1% 66.0% 60.7%

Z-SCORE --

First vs. second -5.40' -1.43 0.02 1.21

Second VS. third 3.02* 3.00* 2.54' 2.71*

First vs. third -1.48 1.79 2.55* 3.71*

335

(11, = 1.76Y.

(211, = 1,808.

(3), = 911.

*p < .05.

survival rate, followed by the third offenders. The survival rate for second offenders was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than for the other two. However, by the third year, rates for the first and second offenders were virtually identical. Also by the end of the third year, the third offenders had a significantly lower survival rate than the others, despite the fact that their licenses had been revoked for the 3-yr period. At the end of the 4-yr period, the third offenders still had significantly lower survival rates than the first or second offenders, who were not significantly different from each other. The fact that the second offenders had a better record during the first year, while their licenses were suspended, suggests that during that year some of them either did not drive, drove less, or drove more carefully. After the year of suspension was finished, their survival rate became similar to that of first offenders.

The trend over the 4-yr period (shown in Table 2) was a decrease in the total annual loss from year to year. This suggests that there may be a high risk subgroup of DUI offenders who quickly become recidivists. If this group could be identified before their next DUI, countermeasures might be directed specifically toward these high risk drivers.

First offenders had the lowest rate of subsequent accident survival, being significantly lower for the 4-yr period than both the second and third offenders (see Table 3). However, the bulk of the difference occurred in the first year, when the first offenders were not under licensing action. Following the first year, the annual loss in survival rate (shown in Table 4) was almost constant for all three offender groups. An exception to this general trend is that in year three, the third offender loss rate was lower than the other two. The reason for this is not clear. While they may have been more careful (either doing less driving or driving more carefully) in order not to jeopardize the potential return of their driving privilege, such care or concern was not evidenced in the DUI survival rates previously described.

Table 2. Annual percentage of drivers in original group being involved in a subsequent DUI by offender group

YEAR

OFFENDEK GROUP 1 2 3 4

First oftender 18.1% 5.7% 5.4% 2.9%

Second offender(2) 11.7% 10.0% 7.6% 4.7%


cl)" = 1.76Y.

(2)n = 1,808.

,(3)" = 911.


Table 3. Percentage of drivers not being involved in an accident, by year and offender group, and Z-scores on tests of differences in survival rates between groups

YEAH

OFFENUER GROUP 1 2 3 4

First offender(l)

Second offender(2)

Third or subsequent offender(3)

first vs. second

second VS. third

First vs. third

Cl), = 1.76Y.

(2)n = 1,808.

(3)" = 911.

*p < .05.

Table 4. Annual percentage of drivers in original group being involved in an accident by offender

group

.~~

Third or subsequent offender(j)

(I), = 1,76Y.

(2)n = 1,808.

(3)n = 91'.

Driving incidence anal_ysis The incidence of driving while under a license suspension or revocation was analyzed

by calculating the number of days between the 1974 DUI conviction and the first update to that driver’s driving record subsequent to the DUI date of conviction. The record update could have been a conviction (using the associated violation date), accident, failure to appear (FTA) or failure to pay (FTP). As can be seen in Table 5, the first offenders

Table 5. Percentage of drivers not being involved in any reportable accident, conviction, FTA, or FTP. by year in survival rates between groups

YEAR


First offender(l) 53.9% 39.1% 32.2% 27.6%

Second oftender(2) 68.3% 49.0% 36.9% 31.4%


Z-SCORE

First vs. second -8.32' -5.58' -2.94* -2.44*

Second vs. third 2.85* 1.13 -0.89 -0.04

First vs. thlra -4.41' -3.46* -3.31* -1.97*

(11, = 1,769.

(2)n = 1,808.

(31, = 911.

'p c .05.

Suspension and revocation effects on the drinkingdriving offender

Table 6. Annual percentage of drivers in original group being involved in any reportable accident, conviction, FTA, or FTP, by offender group

337

YEAR


First offender(l) 46.1% 14.2% 7.5% 4.6%

Second oifender(2) 31.7% 19.3% 12.1% 5.58


(1)n = 1,769. (2)n = 1,808.

(3), = 911.

had a significantly lower survival rate during the first year, again probably reflecting the lack of suspension or revocation for this group. Further, for the following 3-yr both second and third offenders had higher loss or failure rates than first offenders (see Table 6).

Of principal interest here is the fact that during their I-yr suspension period, nearly 32% of second offenders acquired at least one record update, while during their 3-yr revocation period, 61% of third offenders acquired an update. It is clear that since these represent only the drivers who were caught, a large number of drivers are on the road while their license is suspended or revoked.

DISCUSSION

A major implication of the survival rate analyses is that the drivers who incur their first DUI conviction are indeed a high risk driver group, both in terms of DUI recidivism and subsequent accident involvement. It would appear their risk level is quite similar to that of the suspended second offender population. This is not to say the risk would be the same had the second offenders not received a licensing action. Prior research suggests the lack of such an action for multiple offenders results in increased incidence of accident and conviction involvement [Hagen, 19781. The presence of the licensing action probably reduces their exposure such that the incidence of DUI recidivism and accident involvement become comparable. Another explanation for the lack of major differences between the two groups is that the term “first offender” is a misnomer. It has been estimated [Jones and Joscelyn, 19781 that law enforcement officers apprehended only 1 in 200 to 1 in 2000 drunk drivers on the public roadway. This implies it is highly unlikely that the conviction resulting in a driver being categorized as a first offender represents the first time the individual drove under the influence. The misconception is further magnified in jurisdic- tions that often reduce the first DUI arrest of record to some other type of conviction (e.g. reckless driving).

An underestimation of the risk level of the first offender has serious implications on any system that tailors the severity of its countermeasures to the number of DUI convictions an offender possesses over a fixed period of time. The DUI offender has been characterized as an alcohol abuser with behavioral trends toward that of the alcoholic [Moskowitz et al., 19791. They suggest the traditional approach of reserving alcohol abuse treatment for multiple offenders may not be the optimal approach. Application of cheaper treatment to the first offender who presumably may have a less severe drinking problem may be more effective.

While the drinking problem associated with a DUI conviction should be the principal concern of alcohol abuse treatment groups, the incidence of DUI recidivism or subsequent accident involvement must be the major concern of any traffic safety organization. The finding of a traffic safety risk level for first offenders, or at least a subset thereof, comparable to that of second offenders strongly suggests a need for similar traffic safety countermeasures for both offender groups. To date, the most effective method of impacting a multiple DUI offender’s subsequent driving record has been the use of mandatory licensing action (suspension or revocation). It would appear the risk level of first offenders merits such a licensing action. However, from a practical standpoint, mandatory license


controls for first offenders would be expected to grossly impair the process of adjudicating the DUI offense. The number of dismissals, requests for trials by jury, and the incidence of plea bargaining abuse would be expected to escalate. These anticipated detrimental system effects would greatly mitigate any traffic safety benefits achieved from applying a license action to first offenders. As an alternative, it may be possible to identify the subset of first offenders most likely to recidivate within a short period of time (e.g. the 18% who recidivated in year one or the 24% during year 1 and 2). Both alcohol abuse treatment and license controls may be justified for this subset of first offenders. Selection procedures might involve BAC level, prior record or self-report tools like the Mortimer Filkens Questionnaire and/or interview [Mortimer et al., 19711. Design of such procedures will, of course, require additional research and validation.

The effect of licensing actions probably could be enhanced if the driver had an increased perceived risk of being identified while driving under licensing action and being eventually convicted. Unfortunately, the conviction rate for this offense is quite low even when the driver is identified because of another vehicle code violation BHTSA, 19791. The optimum impact of licensing actions on a DUI offender can be realized only when the law enforcement and judicial communities recognize the efficacy of such actions as traffic safety countermeasures and therefore make appropriate arrests, prosecute such offenses, convict where appropriate, and impose any associated mandatory penalties.

Arrest and adjudication of violation of license suspension or revocation provisions would probably be enhanced if licensing authorities would improve their practices of: (1) retrieving the license document after imposing the licensing action; (2) notifying drivers that their driving privilege had been suspended or revoked as well as being able to legally prove such notification; (3) providing knowledge of the existence of the licensing actions to other authorities, particularly out-of-state; and (4) preventing the issuance of duplicate or multiple licenses, which result in the creation and maintenance of multiple driving records for the same driver.

A~~no,~/~d~rmeflts-This project wah conducked while the authors were the Alcohol Traffic Safety and Driver Im- provement Study. a special study unit within the Research and Development Office of the California Department of Motor Vehicles. This activity wa\ the direct result of an earlier study (An Evaluation of the Effects of Nor Swpending The Driving Pnvilege of SB 330 Program Participants) conducted with funds from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS #057701). Principal procedure and manuscript review activities involved Ronald S. Coppin and Ravmond C. Peck. A complete description of the study. data collection instrumentation. and questionnaire comments i, in a technical report titled “Suspension and Revocation Effects on the DUI Offender” (CAL-DMV-RSS-80-75).

REFERENCES

Cutler S. J. and Ederer F.. Maximum utilization of the life table method in analyzing survival. J. Chronic Diseases 8, 699-71 I, 1958.

Epperson W. V., Harano R. M. and Peck R. C., Final Rep. to the legislature of the State of California in accord with resolution Chap. 152. 1972 legislative session (Senate Concurrent Resolution WHarmer). Department of Motor Vehicles, Sacramento. California 1975.

Ferguson G. A., Staristical Ana/.vsis in Psychology and Education. McGraw-Hill, New York 1966. Hagen R.. The efficacy of licensing controls as a countermeasure for multiple DUI offenders. J. Safery Res. 10(3),

115-122, 1978. Hagen R. E.. Williams R. L. and McConnell E. J., The traffic safety impact of alcohol abuse treatment as an

alternative to mandated licensing controls. Accident Anal. & Prev. 11, 275-291, 1979. Homel R., The deterrent effect of penalties on drunk/drivers. Paper presented at the Co& ofAustralia and New

Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, Hobart, Tasmania, 1976. Johns T. R. and Pascarella E. A., An assessment of the limited driving license amendment to the North Carolina

statutes relating to drunk driving. Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1981. Jones R. K. and joscelyn K. B., klcoho? and-highway safety 1978: A review if the state of knowledge-summary

volume. DOT HS-803 764. Highwav Safetv Research Institute. Ann Arbor. Michiean.1978. Merrel M. and Shulman L. E.,beteAinatibn of prognosis in chronic disease, illu&a;ed by systemic lupus

erythematosus. J. Chronic Diseases 1, 12-32. 1955. Mortimer R. G., Filkins L. D.. Lower J. S., Kerlan M. W., Post D. V., Mudge B. and Rosenblatt C.. Court

procedures for identifLmg problem drinkers: Report on Phase I. U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA Contract No. DOT-HS-101-2-452. Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, 1974.

Moskowitz H.. Walker J. and Gomberg C., Characteristics of DWIs, alcoholics, and controls. Proc. 1979 NCA Alcohol and TraJEc Sqfety Session. DOT HS-804 857. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979.

Documents

A driving record analysis of suspension and revocation effects on the drinking-driving offender