# Presentation: 149518

## MADD/NHTSA Regional Law Enforcement Leadership Summit

**Reno, Nevada**
**July 11-12, 2005**

**Notes:**
Thank MADD and NHTSA for sponsoring this Summit.
Thank the NHTSA Western and Northwest Regions for hosting this.
Thank MADD and NHTSA for inviting me to participate in this Summit and give this background information.  

## Impaired Driving and Underage Drinking Enforcement:Effective Strategies

**James C. Fell**
**Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation**

**Notes:**
I have been asked to provide some of the latest information we have on impaired driving enforcement.......and underage drinking enforcement....the so-called “Most Effective Strategies” in the field. 

## Impaired Driving

**Notes:**
Let’s talk about the IMPAIRED DRIVING problem first...and then move into the underage drinking problem in the U.S. after that.

##     In the 1970s

- About 60% of traffic deaths in America were alcohol related – an estimated 28,000-30,000 people killed yearly.
- Drunk driving was socially accepted in American culture; tolerated as an “accident” — not a serious crime.
- Limited awareness, no victim rights or services and no citizen activist groups working to stop drunk driving.

**Notes:**
30 years ago here is where we were.

##     Today

- 35% decline in alcohol-related traffic deaths  (from 26,173 in 1982 to 17,013 in 2003).
- Efforts have saved more than 300,000 lives over the past 25 years.
- More than 2,300 alcohol-impaired driving laws have been adopted.
- One of Department of Transportation’s top priorities
- MADD is the largest crime victim service organization in the world.
- Impaired driving enforcement plays a significant role in overall law enforcement in the United States.

**Notes:**
This is the good news.

## The Impaired Driving Problem:United States

- 17,013 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2003
- 16,654 preliminary estimate for 2004
- An estimated 500,000 people injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes each year
- $51 billion in annual costs to society
- 1,400,000 drivers arrested for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence

**Notes:**
Here is the bad news.

So where do we stand today? We still have an enormous problem in this country.

The 17,000 alcohol-related traffic deaths are very close to the number of homicides each year and more than the number of annual deaths due to AIDS.

How much do we spend on AIDS as a public health issue? Not enough, but certainly more than we spend on drunk driving or underage drinking COMBINED. 

## Estimated DWI Arrests in the United States (1978–2003)

**Notes:**
With regard to DWI arrests, we saw a substantial increase in the early 1980s when the public was demanding more action on this issue. Then arrests went down and have leveled off. 

## Estimated DUI Arrests per Number of Licensed Drivers in the United States(1982–2003)

**Notes:**
One way to measure DWI arrests is the rate per number of licensed drivers in the US, which has been steadily growing.

So you can see that DWI arrest rates, by this measure, have been steadily decreasing.

There are probably 2 major reasons for this: (1) there has been a reduction in drinking and driving; (2) there has been a reduction in impaired driving enforcement.

## DWI Enforcement in the United States

- 1,400,000 drivers arrested for DWI/DUI each year
- 1 DWI arrest for every 135 licensed drivers
- 1 DWI arrest for every 772 reported episodes of driving after drinking
- 1 DWI arrest for every 88 episodes of driving over the BAC limit
- 1 DWI arrest for every 6 stops by police for suspicion of DWI
-     Sources: FBI Uniform Crime Report; Zador, et al (2000)

**Notes:**
So here is where we stand today.
And you all know in this room that we can’t arrest every DWI. So we must depend to a large extent on deterrence strategies if we are to make any more strides in this problem.

## Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities

**Notes:**
Here is the progress we have made over the past 21 years. This has saved over 300,000 lives. By that I mean, if we had remained at 60% and not gone down to 40%, an additional 300,000 people would have died on our highways over the years.

## Proportion of all Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes Estimated to Have Been Legally Intoxicated (BAC=>.08)

**Notes:**
More importantly, we have reduced the proportion of drivers with illegal BACs (>=.08) from over 1/3 of all drivers involved in fatal crashes to about 1/5.  

## Proportion of Fatally Injured Drivers withVery High BAC =>.20 

- Proportion of Fatally Injured Drivers withVery High BAC =>.20** **

**Notes:**
We have also made great progress with the so-called “hard core” offenders----those with very high BACs (.20+).

Don’t believe the myth that we have made all the easy gains and have only affected the “social drinkers.” Our laws and enforcement strategies have equally affected drinkers at all levels. 

## Traffic Fatalities 1982–2003

**Notes:**
So, alcohol-related fatalities have decreased by about 1/3rd while non-alcohol-related fatalities have increased by well over a third (44%).

## Alcohol and Non Alcohol-Related Traffic Deaths Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (US) 1982–2003

**Alcohol-related**

**Non Alcohol-related**

**63% ******

** ****25% ******

**Rate per 100 million VMT**

**.59**

**.89**

**1.58**

**1.18**

**Notes:**
Here is the way NHTSA likes to measure the problem---per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled.

## The Problem

- Drunk driving is America’s most frequently committed violent crime
- Alcohol-related traffic deaths account for 40% of all traffic fatalities
- Major cause: Public and political complacency

**Notes:**
By violent crime, you need to consider the 17,000 deaths, 500,000 injuries and the 1,000,000 crashes that are alcohol-related.

## Establish an effective general deterrence approach
Routine, daily enforcement of impaired driving laws
Call on state leaders to change laws needed to permit sobriety checkpoints
Studies show that checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes by 18-24%

- Routine, daily enforcement of impaired driving laws
- Call on state leaders to change laws needed to permit sobriety checkpoints
- Studies show that checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes by 18-24%

- To Reduce Drunk Driving:We Need Increased Enforcement

**Notes:**
The strategy that will have the most immediate effect on impaired driving is increased enforcement.

## Slide 17

**Notes:**
The simple truth is that sobriety checkpoints work!

Now I know some of you are in States where they are prohibited, but if something similar to checkpoints can be done in your State, I would urge you to do so. 

Why?  Here’s why.

## Results of Sobriety Checkpoint “Blitzes”

- Charlottesville, VA (1985)
- 13% reduction in proportion of alcohol-related crashes
- Clearwater/Largo, FL (1986)
- 20% decrease in proportion of alcohol-related crashes compared to control sites
- Bergen County, NJ (1990)
- 10-15% decline in single-vehicle nighttime crashes and other measures
- Binghamton, NY (1991)
- 39% decline in drinking drivers based on roadside surveys
- 23% reduction in late-night crashes

**Notes:**
We’ve known for almost 20 years now that sobriety checkpoints reduce impaired driving.

Here are results from checkpoint programs conducted in cities or counties.

## Checkpoint TennesseeA Statewide Sobriety Checkpoint Program (Checkpoints 1994-1995)

- Checkpoints conducted	882
- Drivers checked	144,299
- Drivers arrested for DUI	773
- Seat belt violations	1,517
- Drug violation arrests	201
- Felony arrests,
-    stolen vehicles, weapons	88
- Youth offender violations	84
- Other traffic citations	7,351

**Notes:**
Here are results from a statewide sobriety checkpoint program in the mid-1990s.

Please note that this program was conducted after several years of Tennessee only conducting a handful of checkpoints in previous years....so it was quite a change in policy.

Note only an average of less than 1 arrest per checkpoint. You do not need a lot of arrests for the general deterrent value....just publicity and visibility and some credibility.

## Results of “Checkpoint Tennessee”

- Significant effect associated with the checkpoint program
- 20% reduction over the projected number of drunk-driving fatal crashes that would have occurred with no intervention
- Reduction of 9 drunk-driving fatal crashes per month
- 5 comparison states showed nonsignificant *increase* in drunk-driving fatal crashes coincident with “Checkpoint Tennessee”
- Effect present 21 months after initial year

**Notes:**
There were immediate, significant and fairly long-lasting results.

## Georgia’s Operation Zero ToleranceA Statewide Highly Publicized Sobriety Checkpoint Program (Checkpoints 2000-2001)

- Checkpoints conducted	2,837
- Drivers checked	280,082
- Drivers arrested for DUI	2,322
- Seat belt violations	5,348
- Drug violation arrests	1,001
- Felony arrests	236
- Stolen vehicles recovered	57
- Suspended/Revoked
-    Licenses	2,481
- Other traffic citations	14,776

**Notes:**
More recently, NHTSA has funded a checkpoint program in Georgia that was even more extensive than Tennessee’s (but GA has a larger population, too).

Look at these numbers!  Also note less than 1 DWI arrest per checkpoint.

## Results

- Georgia
- Significant decrease in the ratio of drinking drivers to non-drinking drivers in fatal crashes    (–14%; *p*<.005).
- 5% decrease in number of alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicle miles driven (nonsignificant).
- 27% decrease in proportion of people who reported driving after drinking (from 26% to 19%).
- 50% decrease in proportion of people who reported driving after drinking too much (from 18% to 9%).
- Enforcement program saved an estimated 60 lives in the first year of operation.

**Notes:**
Again, a significant decrease in drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes---on the order of 14%-----saving an estimated 60 lives in the first year.

## Reviews of the Literature on Sobriety Checkpoints

| Review | # Studies | Conclusion |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Ross (1992) | 9 | Cumulation of evidence supports the hypothesis that checkpoints reduce impaired driving. |
| Peek-Asa (1999) | 14 | Decreases in alcohol-related fatalities associated with checkpoints: 17% to 75%. |
| Shults et al. (2001) | 16 | Median decrease of 20% in alcohol-related fatal and nonfatal injury causes associated with sobriety checkpoints. |

**Notes:**
Three reviews of the literature on checkpoints come to the same conclusion.

## NHTSA Guidelines

- Stuster & Blowers (1995)—checkpoints effective regardless of staffing levels (3-5 vs. 8-12) or location movement
- Compton (1983); NHTSA (1990)—guidelines for conducting sobriety checkpoints
- NHTSA (1999)—training video on how to conduct checkpoints
- NHTSA (2000)—How-to Guide for Planning and Publicizing Checkpoints
- Miller et al. (1998)—for every $1.00 spent on checkpoint programs, $6.00 is saved in reductions in crashes

**Notes:**
NHTSA has published and issued numerous guidelines on the conduct of checkpoints.

## Checkpoint Status in the United States

- 39 states plus DC conduct sobriety checkpoints
- 11 states—sobriety checkpoints are illegal (ID, IA, MI, MN, OR, RI, TX, WA, WY), prohibited (WI), or not conducted (AK)

**Notes:**
Despite all of this evidence on sobriety checkpoints, here is their status today (or at least as of the year 2000) in the States.

## Saturation Patrols

- In California, highly publicized saturation patrols reduced alcohol-related crashes by 17%.
- In comparison, four California communities that used highly publicized sobriety checkpoints reduced alcohol-related crashes by 28%.
- (Stuster and Blowers, 1995)

**Notes:**
We have plenty of evidence that highly publicized, visible enforcement is effective----in reducing drunk driving, speeding and increasing safety belt use.

## We Need Increased Enforcement

- Checkpoints not only detect impaired drivers, but also result in arrests for illegal weapons, drugs, stolen vehicles, and fugitives. They will help improve *Homeland Security*.
- Checkpoints may well be as “productive” as saturation patrols in terms of arrests per enforcement hour. We need to document and publicize this.

**Notes:**
So, in States that can conduct checkpoints, we need more of them. Easier said than done, right?

## Enforcement Activity in Fairfax and Montgomery Counties:Early 1980s

|  | Fairfax | Montgomery |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Number of sobriety checkpoints | 0 | 30-50 |
| DUI arrests per 10,000 drivers | 96 | 31 |

**Notes:**
Back in the early 1980s, the IIHS conducted a survey of two counties in the Washington, DC, area.

## County in Which Respondents Thought they Would be More Likely to be Arrested for Drunk Driving

- equally
- likely

- Montgomery

- Fairfax

- Montgomery Residents

- equally
- likely

- Montgomery

- Fairfax

- Fairfax** **Residents

- Percent

**Notes:**
Montgomery county, because of their checkpoint program, was perceived by the public as being tougher on drunk driving.

Montgomery County also had much more publicity about the checkpoints than Fairfax County did about their saturation patrols.

Source: Williams & Lund (1984). Deterrent Effects of Roadblocks on Drinking and Driving. Traffic Safety Evaluation Research Review. 1984 3: 7-18.

## What is Needed? 

- A checkpoint system that uses few officers so that it can be mounted without outside funding.
- Use of passive alcohol sensors (PAS) so that all those stopped can be checked for drinking.
- An operational plan that allows checkpoints to be mounted as a regular feature of the DUI enforcement program.

**Notes:**
Because of limited resources, this is what we think needs to be done.

## What are Passive Alcohol Sensors?

- Tool to detect alcohol
- Extension of police officer’s nose
- Quick, objective, passive
- Legal, constitutional
- Not PBT or evidential test
- Can detect low levels of alcohol* *

**Notes:**
Passive Alcohol Sensors have been around for more than 20 years and are getting better and more reliable. And they have been ruled legal.

## Police Detection of High BAC Drivers, with and without Passive Alcohol Sensors (PAS)

|  | Percent detected |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | W/O
PAS | With PAS |
| Sobriety checkpoints
Charlottesville, VA 
Fairfax, VA | 
45
55 | 
68
71 |
| Routine patrol
Columbus, OH | 
69 | 
77 |
| Special DUI patrol
Chattanooga, TN | 
88 | 
94 |

**Notes:**
The use of Passive Sensors have increased the detection of drivers with BACs>= .10 in each study conducted.

## The “PAS-Point” Concept

- 4 to 5 officer checkpoints conducted several times a week.
- Checkpoints manned by regular traffic patrol officers who assemble at pre-established  sites for 2-hour periods.
- Auxiliary officers set up and tear down sites.
- Officers are equipped with passive sensors and use them with every driver interviewed.

**Notes:**
We have come up with what we term as the “PAS-Point” concept: frequent, visible, low staff, routine checkpoints using passive sensors.

## Passive sensor in use at Fairfax county sobriety checkpoint

**Notes:**
A number of police agencies are trying this.

## PAS-Point Operations

- Low manpower checkpoints using Passive Alcohol Sensors being pilot tested in West Virginia.
- So far, operations are feasible and logistics are being worked out.
- Project is sponsored by IIHS. Initial effectiveness in reducing impaired driving was evaluated.

**Notes:**
But will this concept work? Well, we tested it in West Virginia in a studt sponsored by IIHS.

## Low Staff Checkpoints

- Study conducted in 4 rural counties in West Virginia.
- Low staff checkpoints used 3-5 officers.
- Weekly checkpoints conducted in 2 experimental counties for one year.

**Notes:**
We had 2 checkpoint counties and 2 comparison counties.

## Low Staff Checkpoints Results

- Relative to drivers in the 2 comparison  counties, the proportion of drivers on the roads in the experimental counties with BACs>=.05+ was 70% lower.
- The proportion of drivers on the roads in the checkpoint counties with BACs>=.08+ was 64% lower than the comparison counties.

**Notes:**
We conducted roadside surveys of drivers out on the roads on Friday and Saturday nights in each of the 4 counties. We conducted these surveys before the enforcement and several months into the program.

## Summary

- Checkpoints need not be big and expensive.
- Police officers need not be burdened with the requirement to make rapid judgments about drinking based on a very limited interview with a driver.

**Notes:**
Routine, low staff checkpoints using passive sensors appears to have great potential.

## Other Promising Enforcement Strategies

- “Happy Hour” Checkpoints (4pm-7pm) – increase visibility
- “Mobile Awareness” Checkpoints – increase visibility
- “Enforcement Zones” – nighttime enforcement of safety belt usage: increases chances of detecting impaired drivers

**Notes:**
But there are other promising enforcement strategies out there. Here are some.

## Enforcement Zones

**High visibility safety belt enforcement at night**
**Vehicles stopped only if an occupant is unbuckled (primary law state)**
**Potential for detecting impaired drivers is increased**
**Does not involve use of sobriety checkpoints**
**RATIONALE:**
**Safety belt use lower at night**
**Impaired driving higher at night**
**Impaired drivers have low safety belt use rates**
**Combined enforcement – efficient use of resources **

**Notes:**
This strategy is being tried in Michigan. It has great potential.

## Underage Drinking 

**Notes:**
Now let’s turn to underage drinking for a few minutes.....because this is where the impaired driving problem starts and we know that underage 21 drivers are at increased risk of a fatal crash when they drink----much more so than older drivers. 

## Underage DrinkingFACTS

- Half of 8th graders and 3⁄4 of high school seniors report consuming alcohol within the past year.
- Half of high school seniors report being drunk in the past year.
- Half of all college students report high-risk drinking (five or more drinks per session) within the past year.

**Notes:**
Despite our Minimum Drinking Age 21 Law.....here are the facts.

## Underage DrinkingFACTS

- More than 2,200 youths aged 15-20 are killed annually in alcohol-related traffic crashes.
- Underage drinking is related to youth crime, suicides, rapes, assaults, alcohol poisoning, and unintentional injuries. This costs society $62 billion annually.** **

**Notes:**
I would contend that in the majority of communities, underage drinking is related to more deaths, more injuries, more crime, more problems than illegal drugs, gangs, and most other issues you can name. It needs priority.

## Fewer Youth Drink Compared to Adults

- Comparison of drinking patterns for adult and underage drinkers (past 30 days)

**Nondrinkers**

** ****Drinkers**

**Notes:**
Fewer youth tend to drink alcohol, but....

## Young Drinkers Tend to Drink More Heavily than Adult Drinkers

- Nonbingers

-  Bingers

**Notes:**
...when they do, they drink to get drunk.

## Young Drivers’ Over-Involvement in Fatal Crashes in 2000Ages 15-20

**7% of All Licensed Drivers**

**15% of All Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes**

**13% of All Alcohol-Involved Drivers in Fatal Crashes**

**Notes:**
And they are substantially over-represented as drivers in fatal crashes.

## Why Should Underage Drinking Laws Be Enforced?

- Minimum drinking age 21 laws save 1000 lives per year in reductions in traffic fatalities involving young drivers.
- Medical research shows that excessive drinking by youth under age 21 can cause brain damage as well as reduce brain function.

**Notes:**
There are at least four good reasons to have 21 as the minimum legal drinking age.

## Why Should Underage Drinking Laws be Enforced?

- Early onset of drinking increases the risk for future alcohol abuse problems, crashes, and assaults.
- European countries with lower drinking ages experience higher percentages of youth that report intoxication in the past month.

**Notes:**
You have probably heard people say that in Europe, where the drinking age is lower or non-existent, they don’t have any problems with alcohol.

## Prevalence of 5+ Drinks Among European and U.S. Adolescents

**Notes:**
Not true. These are 15 year olds.

## Summary

- A higher percentage of young people from a majority of European countries report:
- Experimenting with alcohol
- Drinking in the past year
- Drinking in the past 30 days
- Heavy episodic drinking
- Intoxication

**Notes:**
So there is a European myth.

## Summary of Underage Drinking Sources

**Notes:**
A number of surveys tell us that most kids get alcohol from other kids, adults and family members....and a smaller number directly from commercial outlets. We have to face these facts.

But there is still a lot more we can do. 

## Enforcement of Underage Drinking

- Compliance Checks (“Stings”)
- Cops in Shops
- False ID Detection
- Shoulder Tap Programs
- Party Dispersal
- Keg Registration Tracking
- Sobriety Checkpoints
- Traffic Stops

**Notes:**
There are a number of ways and strategies in which we can enforce minimum drinking age laws.

These have had at least some reported success.

## National Academy of Sciences

- Reducing Underage Drinking:
- A Collective Responsibility
- 2003

**Notes:**
For an extremely thorough and comprehensive look at the underage drinking problem, I would strongly recommend that you read the recent report from the National Academy of Sciences.

## MADD’s Impaired Driving Priorities:

- Highly visible, highly publicized and frequent enforcement
- Primary Seat Belt Usage Laws in every State
- Tougher Sanctions, better system for dealing with high risk drinking drivers

**Notes:**
MADD’s mission is to stop drunk driving, prevent underage drinking, and serve the victims of these crimes.

 Here are MADD’s current 3 top priorities to reduce impaired driving. 

Note the #1 priority. There is collective agreement on this issue, from NHTSA, the States and the traffic safety community in general. 

## Why Primary Seat Belt Laws?

- There is evidence that when seat belt usage increases from 70-75% to 85-90%, more high risk (drinking) drivers will be buckled up.
- Preliminary studies are indicating that reductions in alcohol-related crash fatalities are greater than reductions in non-alcohol-related fatalities when States upgrade to Primary Seat Belt Laws.

**Notes:**
A safety belt is the best protection against a drunk driver.

## Alcohol Involvement in Fatal Injuries

**Notes:**
Keep in mind, alcohol-related traffic fatalities are just part of an overall problem with alcohol in this country.
Unintentional injuries include drownings, fires, poisonings, falls, etc.

Source: Smith GS, Branas CC, Miller TR. Fatal Nontraffic Injuries Involving Alcohol: A Metaanalysis. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1999; 33(6).

## Recommendations for Increased Enforcement: 

- Highly publicized and frequent sobriety checkpoints probably have the greatest potential for _immediately_ reducing impaired driving crashes in this country.
- Minimum drinking age 21 and zero tolerance laws save more than 1,000 lives per year. Imagine how many lives would be saved if they were _enforced_ to any great extent?

**Notes:**
So, if we can increase enforcement of both impaired driving and underage drinking---we have the best chance of reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities in this country IMMEDIATELY!

## Enforcement Barriers

**Resources (money, personnel, equipment)**
**Complexity of the arrest process**
**Knowledge about and buy-in to what works**
**Motivations, attitudes, priorities**

**Notes:**
We know there are a considerable number of barriers to increasing this type of enforcement.

## Dealing with the Barriers

- Smaller (4-5 person) checkpoints
- Enhanced training in arrest procedures, in providing testimony
- Equipment that facilitates enforcement, e.g., in-car videos, PBTs, passive alcohol sensors
- Computerized forms, digital dictation systems that reduce paper work and recording errors

**Notes:**
Here are some ways to deal with these barriers.

I would also ask you to compare the magnitude of the problem (drunk driving and underage drinking) with other problems in your community. I’ll bet you the numbers come out in the top 3 or 4 issues.

We need community coalitions that will stimulate action and get citizen support for increased enforcement.

## Contact Information

- James C. Fell
- Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE)
- 11710 Beltsville Dr. Suite 300
- Calverton, MD 20705-3102
- 301 755 2746
- E-mail: fell@pire.org

**Notes:**
Feel free to contact me if you have questions or need further information.