U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 


COPS Logo

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing logo
www.PopCenter.org


 Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides 
 Interactive training exercises 
 Online access to research and police practices 
 Online problem analysis module. 


Designed for police and those who work with them to 
address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 
resource in problem-oriented policing. 

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 


Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 
Problem-Specific Guides Series 
Guide No. 36 

Drunk Driving


Michael S. Scott 

with 

Nina J. Emerson 
Louis B. Antonacci 
Joel B. Plant 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 
#2003CKWX0087 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the 
official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to 
specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an 
endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department 
of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 
discussion of the issues. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 

February 2006 


About the Problem-Specific Guides Series 

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 
how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 
and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention 
and to improving the overall response to incidents, not 
to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 
The guides are written for policeof whatever rank or 
assignmentwho must address the specific problem the 
guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers 
who: 

 
Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 
and methods. The guides are not primers in problem-
oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial 
decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to 
analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of a 
problem-oriented policing project. They are designed to help 
police decide how best to analyze and address a problem 
they have already identified. (A companion series of Problem-
Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid in various 
aspects of problem analysis and assessment.) 
 
Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 
complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to spend 
perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and responding 
to it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps 
you design the right strategy, one that is most likely to 
work in your community. You should not blindly adopt the 
responses others have used; you must decide whether they 
are appropriate to your local situation. What is true in one 
place may not be true elsewhere; what works in one place 
may not work everywhere. 



 
Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 
business. The guides describe responses that other police 
departments have used or that researchers have tested. 
While not all of these responses will be appropriate to 
your particular problem, they should help give a broader 
view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 
you cannot implement some of these responses in your 
jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when 
police have discovered a more effective response, they have 
succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving 
the response to the problem. 
 
Understand the value and the limits of research 
knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful 
research is available to the police; for other problems, 
little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 
summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate 
the need for more research on that particular problem. 
Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to 
all the questions you might have about the problem. The 
research may help get you started in designing your own 
responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This 
will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 
problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, 
not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has 
every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so 
would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The 
references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 
on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of 
research on the subject. 
 
Are willing to work with others to find effective 
solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot 
implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. 
They must frequently implement them in partnership with 



other responsible private and public entities including other
government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 
private businesses, public utilities, community groups, 
and individual citizens. An effective problem-solver must 
know how to forge genuine partnerships with others and 
be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these 
partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular entities 
in the community with whom police might work to improve
the overall response to that problem. Thorough analysis of
problems often reveals that entities other than the police are 
in a stronger position to address problems and that police 
ought to shift some greater responsibility to them to do so.


The COPS Office defines community policing as a policing 
philosophy that promotes and supports organizational 
strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime 
and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and 
police-community partnerships. These guides emphasize 
problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context 
of addressing specific public safety problems. For the 
most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate 
problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary 
considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of 
these guides. 

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 
practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, 
Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 
Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from 
country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere 
experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 
increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be 
aware of research and successful practices beyond the 
borders of their own countries. 


The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide 
feedback on this guide and to report on your own agencys 
experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency 
may have effectively addressed a problem using responses 
not considered in these guides and your experiences and 
knowledge could benefit others. This information will be 
used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback 
and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to 
cops_pubs@usdoj.gov. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit 
the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www. 
popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to: 

 the Problem-Specific Guides series 
 the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools 
series 
 instructional information about problem-oriented policing 
and related topics 
 an interactive training exercise 
 online access to important police research and practices. 



Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a 
collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary 
author, other project team members, COPS Office staff 
and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide 
by proposing text, recommending research and offering 
suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The principal project team developing the guide series 
comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, 
University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, 
professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John 

E. Eck, professor of criminal justice, University of 
Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, clinical assistant professor, 
University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson, 
police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm 
Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State 
University. 

Cynthia Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 
Stephen Lynch edited the guide. Research for the guides 
was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers 
University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze. 

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members 
of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police 
departments who provided feedback on the guides' format 
and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the 
line police officers, police executives and researchers who 
peer reviewed each guide. 


Contents 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series .................................i
Acknowledgments ....................................................v
The Problem of Drunk Driving ...........................................1
Related Problems .................................................1
Harm Caused by Drunk Driving.......................................2
Drunk Drivers.....................................................2
Repeat Offenders..................................................4
Blood Alcohol Levels...............................................5
Drinking Locations.................................................5
Factors Contributing to Drunk Driving..................................6
Cultural and Economic Factors....................................6
Low Risk of Apprehension .......................................6
Overserving...................................................8
Community Design.............................................9
Understanding Your Local Problem .......................................11
Stakeholders .....................................................11
Asking the Right Questions .........................................12
Incidents ....................................................12
Victims ......................................................13
Offenders ....................................................13
Locations/Times ...............................................14
Current Responses to the Problem ................................14
Measuring Your Effectiveness........................................15
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving.................................17
General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy ................17
Specific Responses to Reduce Drunk Driving 18
Legislation ...................................................18
Enforcement..................................................21
Curtailing Driving Privileges......................................25

Sanctioning Convicted Drunk Drivers...............................28
Monitoring Drunk Drivers........................................30
Reducing Alcohol Consumption ...................................31
Public Education...............................................33
Alternative Transportation .......................................35
Environmental Design...........................................36
Responses With Limited Effectiveness.................................37
Appendix: Summary of Responses to Drunk Driving ..........................40
Endnotes............................................................48
References ..........................................................55
About the Authors ....................................................75
Recommended Readings ...............................................77
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police..................................81


The Problem of Drunk Driving 

This guide begins by describing the problem of drunk 
driving and reviewing the factors that increase its risks. It 
then identifies a series of questions that can help analyze 
local drunk driving problems. Finally, it reviews responses 
to the problem of drunk driving and examines what is 
known about the effectiveness of these responses from 
research and police practice. 

Simply put, drunk driving is a police concern because 
alcohol increases the risk that drivers will get in traffic 
crashes and kill or injure themselves or others. Alcohol 
impairment is the primary factor in traffic fatalities.1 In 
the United States, where drunk driving is among the most 
common types of arrest made by police, the number of 
alcohol-related crash deaths is roughly the same as the 
number of homicides.2 In addition, vehicle crashes are 
the leading cause of death in young people ages 15 to 20; 
many of these are alcohol-related.3 

Related Problems 

Drunk driving is one of a number of problems police 
confront that relate to impaired and dangerous driving. 
Others, which may require separate analysis and response, 
include: 

 
driving under the influence of controlled substances 
 
underage drinking 
 
street racing 
 
speeding 
 
aggressive driving 
 
driving with a suspended or revoked license 
 
hit-and-run crashes. 

 Various terms are used to describe 
the problem: drunk driving, 
drunken driving, drink driving, 
driving under the influence (DUI), 
driving while intoxicated (DWI), 
and operating while intoxicated 
(OWI) are among the most common. 

 The Century Council, a non-profit 
organization funded by U.S. alcohol 
distillers, publishes a sourcebook 
on combating drunk driving that 
also surveys relevant research and 
practice (Century Council 2003). The 
sourcebook can be accessed online 
at http://dwidata.org/.

 It is important to bear in mind 
that alcohol-related crashes and 
crashes caused by drunk driving 
are not necessarily the same thing. 
Alcohol-related crashes are typically 
defined as those in which a driver 
or injured pedestrian has any 
measurable blood alcohol, many of 
which will fall below legal levels for 
drunk driving. 

 Much, but not all, of the 
information in this guide also 
pertains to the problem of driving 
under the influence of other 
controlled substances. 


Harm Caused by Drunk Driving 

Drunk driving harms individuals and communities in 
many ways. 

 
Drivers, passengers, and pedestrians are killed and injured. 
 
Injured persons, their families, and their employers suffer 
financial losses when an injured person cannot work. 
 
Vehicles are damaged and destroyed. 
 
Other property, such as trees, utility poles, highway signs, 
and buildings, are damaged and destroyed. 
 
Motor vehicle insurance rates rise. 
 
Traffic flow is impeded by crashed vehicles. 
 
Other drivers, fearing for their safety, may avoid driving at 
certain times. 
 
Police resources are consumed enforcing drunk driving 
laws, thereby reducing the resources that are available for 
other public safety problems. 
 
Police, fire, emergency medical, and hospital resources are 
consumed treating the victims of drunk driving crashes. 
 
Court and jail resources are consumed prosecuting and 
incarcerating drunk drivers. 


Drunk Drivers 

One of the reasons drunk driving is of such concern 
to police is that it is an offense committed by a broad 
spectrum of the population, including those who are 
otherwise generally law-abiding. An estimated one-fifth 
to one-fourth of U.S. drivers admit to having driven after 
drinking at least once within the past year,4 and about five 
percent estimate that they were legally impaired.5 Drunk 


drivers come from all parts of the population spectrum, 
but are more likely to be male,6 white or Hispanic,7 
between 25 and 44 years of age,8 unemployed or working 
class,9 and unmarried.10 Drunk drivers are more likely 
to be heavy drinkers or to have drinking problems.11 
Drinking drivers under 21 years of age are about twice 
as likely as older drivers to be involved in fatal vehicle 
crashes.12 

Recent roadside surveys in the United States indicate that 
about three percent of drivers at any particular time are 
legally impaired. On weekend evenings the number of 
drunk drivers rises significantly: about eight percent of 
all drivers have blood alcohol concentrations greater than 
.05, and an additional nine percent of drivers have had at 
least one drink, meaning that on weekend evenings around 
17 percent of all drivers are operating their vehicles under 
the influence of at least some alcohol.13, Considering the 
high traffic volume during this period, it is clear that there 
are a lot of impaired drivers, especially compared to the 
limited law enforcement resources that are available to 
investigate suspected incidents of drunk driving. 

Although the general public and the police are perhaps 
most concerned about wholly innocent persons who are 
killed in alcohol-related crashes, it is in fact the drunk 
driver or his passenger who is most likely to be killed.14 
In recent years, significant reductions have been achieved 
in the number of young drivers killed in alcohol-related 
crashes, due largely to higher legal drinking ages, greater 
licensing restrictions on young drivers, and stricter 
enforcement of juvenile drunk driving laws.15, 

 Blood alcohol concentration is 
typically measured as a ratio of 
grams of alcohol per deciliter of 
blood or per 210 liters of breath. 

 For further information about 
how to develop a comprehensive 
approach to juvenile drunk 
driving, see Strategies for 
Success: Combating Juvenile DUI 
(National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Police Executive 
Research Forum, and U.S. Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention, 1999). 


Image of alcohol-related car accident
Alcohol is a primary factor in a large number of 
fatal traffic accidents. In fact, the number of U.S. 
alcohol-related traffic deaths is roughly the same as 
the number of homicides.


Repeat Offenders 

By most estimates, although repeat drunk drivers 
comprise a relatively small proportion of the total 
population of drivers, they are disproportionately 
responsible for alcohol-related crashes and other 
problems associated with drunk driving.16 In fact, 
anywhere from one-third to three-fourths of drivers 
arrested for drunk driving have previously been charged 
with the offense.17 Those who drink and drive at least 
twice per month account for about 90 percent of all 
drunk driving trips.18 In the United States, one-third 
to one-half of those charged with drunk driving will 
be charged with it again in the future.19 However, even 
though repeat offenders are disproportionately involved 
in traffic crashes, most alcohol-related crashes are caused 
by drivers who have not previously been charged with 
drunk driving, so police must pay attention to both 
repeat and first-time offenders. 


Blood Alcohol Levels 

Perception and motor skills are impaired by a blood 
alcohol concentration of as low as .05, which is typically 
two or three drinks for the average adult.20 Although 
drivers with blood alcohol concentrations of .15 and 
above are much more likely to be involved in serious or 
fatal traffic crashes,21, drivers with lower concentrations 
remain at a substantial risk for less serious crashes.22 
In addition, many drivers are impaired by alcohol in 
combination with other controlled substances. Low blood 
alcohol concentrations of obviously impaired drivers 
are often due to the presence of substances other than 
alcohol.23 

Drinking Locations 

A relatively high percentage of drunk driversperhaps 
one-third to one-halfconsume their alcohol in a licensed 
establishment such as a bar or restaurant.24 Nearly one-
half of drivers with measurable levels of alcohol in 
their systems claim to have been drinking at the home 
of a friend, making social hosts an important factor in 
controlling drunk driving.25 In addition, a significant 
amount of drinking is done in vehicles themselves, 
especially by underage drivers who are not permitted in 
licensed establishments and by drivers with serious alcohol 
problems.26 

 Although blood alcohol 
concentration affects individual 
drivers differently, on average, the 
risk of a driver getting in a serious 
vehicle crash roughly doubles when 
his blood alcohol concentration 
reaches .05, increases ten-fold at .08, 
twenty-fold at .10, and by a factor 
of hundreds at .15 and above (Ross, 
1992). 


Factors Contributing to Drunk Driving 

Understanding the factors that contribute to drunk driving 
in your jurisdiction can help to frame local analysis, to 
identify effective remedial measures, to recognize key 
intervention points, and to select appropriate responses. 

Cultural and Economic Factors 

Drunk driving is very much the result of a cultural 
norm that emphasizes drinking alcohol as a form of 
entertainment and driving as both transportation and 
entertainment.27 Cultural drinking habits also shape drunk 
driving patterns. For example, drunk driving will be more 
concentrated on weekend nights in countries where such 
nights are considered prime time for heavy drinking. The 
extent of drunk driving also depends, obviously, on the 
availability of vehicles, so it is less likely in societies and 
communities where vehicles are prohibitively expensive. 

Low Risk of Apprehension 

Perhaps the single most significant factor in explaining 
why people drive while impaired is that they believe that 
there is little risk that they will be caught by policeand 
statistically, they are correct. By some estimates, the 
average drunk driver will drive while impaired between 
80 and 2000 times for every time he is apprehended, 
depending on the enforcement capacity of the local 
police.28 In fact, most drivers believe they are more likely 
to be involved in a crash than they are to be stopped by 
police.29 


Even the most committed police agencies and officers can 
stop or arrest only a very small percentage of the impaired 
drivers who are on the road at any one timeprobably less 
than one percent. There are several reasons this is so: 

 
At least in the United States, police must ordinarily 
reasonably suspect a driver is impaired or has committed 
some other traffic violation in order to stop and detain the 
driver, and some drunk drivers are able to operate a vehicle 
without displaying obvious indicators of intoxication such 
as weaving or crossing the center line of the road. 
 
There are far fewer police officers on duty at any one time 
than the public commonly imagines. 
 
There are many competing priorities for police attention, 
particularly at times when drunk driving is at its peak. 
 
Processing a drunk driving arrest is time-consuming, 
typically taking two to four hours. 


The low probability that they will be stopped or arrested 
by the police on any particular trip undoubtedly leads many 
drivers to conclude that they can drink and drive without 
getting caught. 

Detecting drunk driving is not as easy as it might seem. 
Those without specialized training in detecting alcohol 
impairmenteven medical professionalsare notoriously 
poor at estimating alcohol impairment. For police, 
detecting drunk driving typically requires two separate 
judgments: first, that a vehicle is being operated by an 
impaired driver; and second, that the driver is impaired by 
alcohol or another controlled substance. Each judgment 
is in turn subject to two kinds of errors: first, that the 
driver is impaired by alcohol when in fact he is not (false 
positive); and second, that the driver is not impaired by 
alcohol when in fact he is (false negative). 


Compounding the difficulty of estimating impairment 
is the fact that some police officers try to arrest only 
those drivers who they believe have high blood alcohol 
concentrations, either because they prefer to prosecute 
only strong cases or because they do not want to be 
criticized for wasting scarce police resources on borderline 
cases. Consequently, some officers systematically fail to 
arrest impaired drivers because they are only searching for 
the most impaired. 

Drunk Busters of America 

Image of police officer holding drunk driving law sign
Although police want to create the impression that 
all drunk drivers will be arrested, in reality only 
a small percentage of drunk drivers on the road 
at any particular time will in fact be stopped or 
arrested. 

Overserving 

Serving obviously intoxicated guests and patrons increases 
the risk of drunk driving, especially when drinking occurs 
at a location that most guests and patrons must drive to. 
Absent adequate enforcement of the laws that prohibit 
serving intoxicated patrons, overserving is notoriously 


common. The combination of the social pressure put on 
servers by patrons and the economic pressure to maximize 
profit can often overwhelm a servers better judgment. 

Community Design 

Perhaps obviously, drunk driving is more common where 
licensed establishments are located far from where people 
live and work. Accordingly, drunk driving is likely to be 
more common, proportionate to the number of drinkers, 
in rural or suburban settings. Where people can easily 
walk or take public transportation in order to drink at a 
licensed establishment, drunk driving is proportionately 
less common.30 


Understanding Your Local Problem 

The information above is only a generalized description 
of drunk driving. You must combine the basic facts with 
a more specific understanding of your local problem. 
Analyzing your local problem carefully will help you to 
design a more effective response strategy. 

Stakeholders 

In addition to criminal justice and alcohol regulatory 
agencies, the following organizations and entities have 
an interest in curtailing drunk driving and may be able to 
make a valuable contribution to efforts to alleviate the 
problem, both as sources of information on the extent of 
the problem and as partners in implementing solutions 
to it: 

 driver and vehicle licensing bureaus 
 insurance companies 
 motor vehicle clubs and associations 
 drunk driving victims groups 
 tavern and liquor sales industry groups 
 alcohol taxation authorities 
 personal injury attorneys 
 alcohol dependence assessment and treatment 
organizations 
 transportation businesses, such as taxi, limousine, and 
bus companies 
 traffic engineering departments 
 community planning organizations 
 schools 
 large employers 
 emergency medical providers, such as hospital workers 
and ambulance crews. 



Asking the Right Questions 

The following are some critical questions you should 
ask in analyzing your local drunk driving problem. The 
answers to these and other questions will help you choose 
the most appropriate set of responses later. 

Incidents 

 
How many alcohol-related crashes occur in your 
jurisdiction? In what percentage are one or more of the 
drivers legally intoxicated? 
 
What proportion of all vehicle crashes in your 
jurisdiction is alcohol-related? 
 
What other factors play a significant role in alcohol-
related crashes and injuries? Weather? Roadway design? 
Traffic volume? Seat belt use? 
 
How many drunk driving trips do you estimate occur in 
your jurisdiction? On a typical weekend evening? On a 
typical weekday evening? 
 
In what percentage of crashes does a suspected drunk 
driver leave the scene before police arrive? 
 
What specific driving behaviors commonly cause 
alcohol-related crashes? Running stop signals? 
Speeding? Failing to yield the right-of-way? Following 
too closely? Swerving? 
 
What is the typical blood alcohol concentration of at-
fault drivers in fatal crashes? Serious injury crashes? 
Minor injury crashes? Non-injury crashes? Arrests 
involving no crash? 
 
How concerned is the general public about drunk 
driving? 
 
What is the estimated total economic cost to the 
community for alcohol-related crashes (including, 
for example, property damage, lost wages, medical or 
funeral costs, and insurance pay-outs and premium 
increases)? 



Victims 

 
How many people are killed and injured in alcohol-
related crashes? 
 
How many and what proportion of crash victims are 
at-fault drivers? Not-at-fault drivers? Passengers of 
at-fault drivers? Passengers of not-at-fault drivers? At-
fault pedestrians? Not-at-fault pedestrians? 
 
What is known about the demographic profile of 
persons injured in alcohol-related crashes in your 
jurisdiction? Age? Gender? Race or ethnicity? 
Employment status? Residence? 
 
To what extent were persons injured in alcohol-related 
crashes also intoxicated? 


Offenders 

 
What proportion of persons arrested for drunk driving 
in your jurisdiction have previously been charged with 
drunk driving? 
 
What is the driving history of those arrested for drunk 
driving? Do persons arrested for drunk driving typically 
have worse driving histories than those not arrested for 
drunk driving? 
 
Are persons arrested for drunk driving also involved in 
other criminal conduct? 
 
What is known about the demographic profile of drunk 
drivers in your jurisdiction? Age? Gender? Race or 
ethnicity? Employment status? Residence? 
 
How intoxicated are persons arrested for drunk driving? 
 
What proportion of arrested drunk drivers were driving 
while their licenses were suspended or revoked? 


 Note that if state driver histories 
are purged after a certain time 
period, the proportion of repeat 
offenders may be underestimated. 


Locations/Times 

 
Where do drunk drivers report having done their 
drinking? 
 
Are certain establishments commonly reported as the 
source of a drunk drivers last drink? 
 
Are there certain areas within your jurisdiction where 
a high proportion of drunk driving or drunk driving 
arrests occur? If so, what explains this concentration? 
 
When does most drunk driving occur? When do most 
alcohol-related crashes occur? Days of the week? Times 
of the day? Weeks of the year? 


Current Responses to the Problem 

 
How many drunk driving arrests are made in your 
jurisdiction? Has this number changed in recent years? 
 
What proportion of drunk driving arrests is reactive 
(i.e., made as a result of a vehicle crash or citizen 
complaint)? What proportion is proactive (officer 
initiated)? 
 
How long does it typically take for an officer to process 
a drunk driving arrest? 
 
Which police officers and units make the most drunk 
driving arrests? Do regular patrol officers place a high 
priority on drunk driving arrests? Does a special drunk 
driving enforcement unit exist? 
 
In what proportion of drunk driving arrests does the 
offender refuse to take a blood alcohol test? 
 
Do police officers have authority to demand blood 
alcohol tests of all drivers involved in serious or fatal 
crashes, or must they first have probable cause to 
believe that the driver is intoxicated? 
 
What are the legal consequences for an offender who 
refuses to submit to a blood alcohol test? 



 
What are the typical sentences imposed on convicted 
drunk drivers? On first-time offenders? On repeat 
offenders? On those convicted of vehicular homicide? 
Do offenders typically comply with the terms of their 
sentences? Are there legal consequences for failing to 
comply with court orders? 
 
What options are available to a police officer who stops 
a suspected drunk driver? Is arrest mandatory? Are 
alternatives to arrest authorized? Do officers resort 
to alternatives even if not officially authorized? If so, 
which ones are effective? Can an officer be exposed to 
civil liability in relation to drunk driving enforcement? 


Measuring Your Effectiveness 

Measurement will allow you to determine the degree 
to which your efforts have been successful and can 
also suggest how your responses can be modified to 
produce the intended results. Measuring the extent of 
your problem before you implement remedial responses 
will allow you to determine how serious the problem is; 
it will also give you a baseline against which to measure 
the effectiveness of the strategies that you choose to 
implement. All remedial measures should be implemented 
in both the target area and the surrounding area. 

 For more detailed guidance on 
measuring effectiveness, see the 
companion guide to this series, 
Assessing Responses to Problems: An 
Introductory Guide for Police Problem-
Solvers. 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 
effectiveness of responses to drunk driving: 

 reduced number of alcohol-related crashes 
 reduced proportion of all crashes that is alcohol-related 
 reduced number of injuries and fatalities caused by 
alcohol-related crashes 





 
reduced proportion of all crashes that result in injuries 
or fatalities 
 
reduced severity of alcohol-related crash injuries 
 
reduced damage to property from alcohol-related 
crashes. 


Reducing the number of drunk drivers on the roads is an 
important means of achieving the ultimate objective of 
reducing the harm caused by drunk driving. 


Responses to the Problem of 
Drunk Driving 

Analyzing your local drunk driving problem will give you 
a better understanding of the factors that contribute to it. 
Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a 
baseline for measuring effectiveness, you can consider possible 
responses to the problem. 

The following strategies provide a foundation for addressing 
local drunk driving problems. These strategies are drawn 
from a variety of studies and police reports; several may 
apply in your community. It is critical that you tailor your 
response to local circumstances and that you can justify 
each response based upon reliable analysis. In most cases, an 
effective strategy will involve implementing several different 
responses, because law enforcement alone is seldom effective 
in reducing or eliminating the problem. Do not limit yourself 
to considering what police can do; instead, carefully consider 
who else in your community shares responsibility for the 
problem and can help 
address it. 

General Considerations for an Effective Response 
Strategy 

Drinking and driving is greatly influenced by contemporary 
social attitudes towards the practice. And although laws and 
law enforcement can help change social attitudes, the reverse 
is much more likely: that is, that changes in social attitudes 
will lead to stricter laws and law enforcement. The general 
trend in social attitudesat least in the United States, Canada, 
Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, and Japanhas 
been toward a lessened tolerance for drinking and driving. 


There is a broad range of social policy changes that 
can significantly reduce drunk drivingtax policy, 
urban planning, roadway design, vehicle safety, alcohol 
advertising, and emergency medical care, among others 
but for the most part police can only influence these 
policies indirectly, through advocacy. The responses 
below are those that police have some capacity to 
influence directly, at least at the local level. 

 See Ross (1992) for a comprehensive 
review of social policy affecting drunk
driving.

As is often the case, a combination of responses is 
likely to prove more effective than any single response.31 
Legislatures and police agencies commonly implement 
a combination of responses that are effective in the 
aggregate, making it difficult or impossible to know which 
particular responses were effective and which were not.32 

Responses may work more or less well when applied to 
high-risk drunk drivers (those who are highly committed 
to driving while impaired) than when applied to occasional 
drunk drivers. 

Specific Responses to Reduce Drunk Driving 

Legislation 

1. Reducing the legal limit of per se violations. Most 
jurisdictions have enacted laws specifying that certain 
measurable levels of alcohol are per se violations of the 
law, irrespective of proof that the alcohol actually impaired 
the ability of the driver to operate the motor vehicle. 

 The legal limits are often even lower
for drivers of commercial vehicles. See,
for example, the U.S. Code of Federal 
Regulations 49 CFR 382.201.

1a. Reducing the legal limit of per se intoxication for 
adult drivers. Most countries and U.S. states set the 
level of per se intoxication at a BAC of .08. Reducing 
the legal limit of intoxication and vigorous enforcement 
of drunk driving laws have been shown to reduce the 


number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities, especially 
when combined with administrative license suspensions 
(see Response 12 below).33 

1b. Reducing the legal limit of per se intoxication for 
repeat offenders. Some jurisdictions set lower per se 
intoxication levels for persons who have previously 
been convicted of drunk driving. There is some 
evidence that this is effective.34 

1c. Reducing the legal limit of per se violations for 
underage drivers. Many countries and U.S. states have 
enacted laws that prohibit underage drivers from having 
any measurable level of alcohol in their systems (so-
called zero tolerance laws). Although zero tolerance 
laws are usually not strictly enforced, they do appear to 
have some deterrent effect on young drivers.35 

2. Requiring drivers to submit to blood alcohol testing 
if arrested for drunk driving. Nearly all jurisdictions 
require drivers to submit to blood alcohol testing when 
asked by police. In the United States, such requests can 
only be made if police have probable cause to believe that 
a driver is intoxicated. In Europe and Australia, however, 
such requests can be made without any prior evidence of 
intoxication. So-called random breath testing has proven 
to be effective in reducing drunk driving in Australia, 
not merely because it increases the risk of detection, but 
because it also reduces the social pressure to drink and 
drive by giving people a ready justification for not 
doing so.36 


3. 
Raising the minimum legal drinking age. The legal 
drinking age in all U.S. states is now 21 years of age and 
there is evidence that these laws have helped reduce 
the number of underage drivers who are involved in 
alcohol-related crashes.37 It is likely that standardizing the 
minimum legal drinking age has also helped reduce the 
number of alcohol-related crashes that occur near the 
borders of states that formerly had different minimum 
drinking ages.38 

4. 
Prohibiting open alcohol containers in moving 
vehicles. Drinking while driving is especially risky because 
freshly imbibed alcohol is likely to cause maximum 
impairment to the driver. Prohibiting open containers in 
moving vehicles serves to restrict the availability of alcohol 
to drivers. There is some evidence that prohibiting open 
containers of alcohol in vehicles helps reduce the number 
of alcohol-related crashes.39 

5. 
Requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts. 
Although it has no particular effect on drunk driving itself, 
requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts helps 
reduce the severity of injuries in vehicle crashes.40 Drunk 
drivers and drunk passengers, however, are less likely than 
others to wear seat belts,41 and because drunk drivers are 
more likely to drive recklessly, they and their passengers 
are at higher risk of injury than non-drinking drivers and 
passengers. 



Enforcement 

The main goal of drunk driving enforcement should be to 
raise the perception among drinking drivers that they will 
be stopped and investigated for drunk driving. This can be 
achieved in two ways: first, by increasing the total number 
of drivers stopped by police; and second, by improved 
detection of alcohol impairment once a stop is made. 
There is some evidence that the latter method is more 
efficient and effective.42 Training police officers in drunk 
driving enforcement is therefore critical, but the value 
of the training depends upon whether the police agency 
supports drunk driving enforcement by its officers.43 

6.Increasing the number of police stops of suspected 
drunk drivers during high-risk periods. Because 
convincing drivers that they will get caught is perhaps the 
most important factor in deterring drunk driving, police 
should significantly increase the number of stops of 
suspected drunk drivers, particularly during times when 
the drunk driving crash risk is at its highest.44 This can be 
done by increasing the patrol time of officers looking for 
drunk drivers, streamlining the arrest process, encouraging 
citizens to report drunk drivers,45 and increasing the 
emphasis that is placed on drunk driving interdiction and 
enforcement. 

 The procedural requirements for 
processing a typical drunk driving 
arrestand consequently, the overall 
time it takes police to make an 
arresthave increased steadily over 
the years, serving as a disincentive to 
officers to make a formal arrest (see 
Simpson and Robertson, 2001). 



Emphasizing enforcement may require police departments 
to authorize officers to use alternatives to arrest once they 
have determined that a driver has been drinking, lest scarce 
enforcement resources be exhausted by time-consuming 
arrests. A variety of alternatives exist, the effectiveness of 
which will depend on the particular circumstances of each 
incident. These alternatives include: 

 
warning the driver 
 
requiring a sober passenger to drive 
 
allowing the driver to call a sober driver to pick him up 
 
giving the driver a ride home or to some other safe place 
 
following the driver home to ensure his safety 
 
confiscating the keys to the vehicle 
 
requiring the driver to take alternative transportation 
such as a taxi or bus.


The use of such alternatives can create a dilemma for 
police departments, because in some circumstances 
authorizing officers to not make drunk driving arrests 
when there are grounds to do so can expose the 
department to civil liability; on the other hand, however, 
mandating that an arrest be made every time there are 
grounds to do so can discourage officers from stopping 
suspected drunk drivers out of a concern that processing 
the arrest will leave them unavailable for other duties, 
thereby undermining the goal of convincing drunk drivers 
that they are at risk of being stopped by police.46 Police 
should consult local legal counsel to craft policies that will 
enable officers to remove drunk drivers from the roads 
safely without resorting to arrest, while at the same time 
protecting officers and departments from potential civil 
liability. 

 Much of the police concern 
about civil liability for failing to 
arrest drunk drivers emanated from 
a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 
Court opinion holding that police 
have a special relationship to 
motorists injured by a known drunk 
driver who police failed to take into 
custody (see Harvey and Caldwell, 
1984). 

7. Conducting sobriety checkpoints. Sobriety checkpoints 
have been shown to reduce the incidence of drunk 
driving and alcohol-related crashes anywhere from 15 


to 25 percent.47 Their use is generally supported by the 
public.48 Sobriety checkpoints can be either selective or 
random: that is, all drivers on a particular roadway can 
be checked for sobriety or only those who meet certain 
criteria. Some jurisdictions conduct them regularly; others 
only during special enforcement periods.49 To be most 
effective, checkpoints should be highly visible, so that  
drivers perceive that their risk of being stopped and  
arrested has increased.50 Police should consult with counsel 
to determine the legality of and conditions under which  
sobriety checkpoints may be conducted. 

 The U.S. Supreme Court upheld
the legality of sobriety checkpoints 
in Michigan Department of State 
Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), but 
some states prohibit them either by
statute or state constitution. Police
can conduct breath tests on any driver 
without cause in some countries, 
including Australia.

In the United States, once a driver is stopped at a sobriety 
checkpoint, police must decide whether there are grounds 
to test him for alcohol impairment. By some estimates, 
police fail to detect signs of impairment in one-half of 
drivers with blood alcohol concentrations higher than the 
legal limit, so sobriety checkpoints are hardly foolproof.51 
Sobriety checkpoints are typically costly, although even 
regularly conducted operations that require only a few 
officers can be effective.52 Sobriety checkpoints are not 
necessarily the most efficient method of detecting and 
apprehending drunk drivers: regular or saturation police 
patrols in which drunk driving is a high priority often 
yield more arrests for the resources invested.53 However, 
sobriety checkpoints often produce the added benefit of 
apprehending drivers for violations other than just drunk 
driving. 

Image of DUI Checkpoint sign
Publicizing sobriety checkpoints can aid in convincing 
drivers that their risk of being stopped and arrested has 
increased. 




8. 
Training police officers to detect impaired drivers. 
Specialized trainingincluding understanding the physical 
and verbal cues that indicate alcohol impairmentcan 
help improve the ability of police officers to detect drunk 
drivers. The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) 
appears to be the most accurate of the tools that have 
been developed to assist police in recognizing indications 
of alcohol impairment. Endorsed by the U.S. National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the SFST includes a 
horizontal gaze nystagmus test, a walk-and-turn test, and a 
one-leg stand test. A combination of tests is usually called 
for, because some drinkers, particularly serious alcoholics, 
can perform certain tasks even while profoundly impaired. 

 See National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (1997) for 
detailed information about known 
cues for detecting drunk driving 
among truck and car drivers 
and National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (1992) for 
information regarding motorcycle 
riders. 

 Police officers can also receive 
training through the Drug 
Evaluation and Classification 
Program, a protocol that enables 
officers to rule out certain medical 
factors and establish probable cause 
that drivers are under the influence 
of drugs other than alcohol 
(American Prosecutors Research 
Institute, 2004; National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, n.d.; 
International Association of Chiefs 
of Police, 2004). 


9. 
Using preliminary breath testing devices. Preliminary 
breath testing devices (PBT) are typically small and easy to 
operate. Some devices are passive sensors that can detect 
the presence of alcohol from within a few inches of a 
drivers face. Passive devices ordinarily do not require an 
officer to meet any evidentiary standard over and above the 
one required to stop the vehicle in the first instance. Other 
devices, which require a driver to blow into a tube or other 
aperture, ordinarily do require that the officer first have 
reason to believe that the driver has been drinking. Both 
types of devices aid officers in the field in determining 
that there is probable cause to believe that a driver is 
alcohol-impaired, usually with the net effect of increasing 
the likelihood of arrest. There is some evidence that 
jurisdictions that use PBT have lower alcohol-related fatality 
rates than those that do not.54 



Random breath-testingwhereby police have the legal 
authority to stop and demand an alcohol breath test from 
any driver at any timehas been demonstrated to be 
particularly effective,55 but is impermissible in the United 
States as a constitutional matter. 

Image of breath testing device
Police use of preliminary breath-testing devices 
such as the one pictured above increase the 
probability that a suspected drunk driver will be 
arrested. 

Curtailing Driving Privileges 

10. Suspending or revoking driver licenses 
administratively. Suspending or revoking the licenses 
of those convicted of drunk driving is one of the 
most effective methods for reducing alcohol-related 
crashes, but its effectiveness is limited by the capacity 
of police and others to enforce the conditions of 
suspension and revocation; moreover, this method is 
only effective, if at all, during the period of suspension 
or revocation.56 Administrative license suspensions 
suspensions imposed by a licensing agency rather than 
by the courtshave proven more effective than judicial 
sanctions in some states, but not others.57 


By some estimates, over three-fourths of drivers with 
suspended or revoked licenses continue to drive.58 In 
fact, many drivers with suspended or revoked licenses 
never even bother to apply for license reinstatement 
when they are eligible to do so. One of the unintended 
consequences of mandatory license suspension and 
revocation laws is that judicial and law enforcement 
resources are consumed dealing with those who continue 
to drive under suspension or revocation.59 

11. 
Imposing graduated licensing systems for young 
drivers. Several U.S. states have enacted so-called 
graduated licensing for young drivers. Typically, these 
systems grant young drivers limited privileges in their 
early driving years, such as restricting the number of 
passengers, the hours of operation, the use of cell 
phones while driving, or the types of vehicles that may 
be driven. These systems have been shown to have a 
positive effect on young drivers attitudes about drinking 
and driving, on their willingness to either drink and 
drive themselves or ride in vehicles with drinking drivers, 
and on reducing their involvement in fatal and injury 
crashes.60 

12. 
Impounding, immobilizing, or confiscating the 
vehicles of drunk drivers. Impounding the vehicles 
of drivers whose licenses have been suspended or 
revokedfor whatever reason, including drunk driving 
is effective in reducing the likelihood that a driver will be 



charged with driving offenses, including drunk driving, 
or will be involved in a traffic crash.61 However, the 
mere threat of impoundment does not deter driving 
after suspension or revocation: a vehicle must actually be 
impounded to influence a drivers behavior.62 In some 
jurisdictions, police return the vehicle to its owner if the 
offender satisfactorily completes an alcohol treatment 
program and reimburses the government for the costs 
associated with impoundment.63 Impoundment or 
forfeiture is often complicated by the fact that the vehicle 
used by a habitual drunk driver is owned by someone 
else or that other members of the drunk drivers family 
might be inconvenienced by the loss of the vehicle. 

An alternative to impoundment is temporary 
immobilization by the use of a device that either prevents 
the motor from operating or locks the vehicles wheels. 

In some jurisdictions, police and prosecutors apply for 
judicial forfeiture of the vehicle, thereby permanently 
depriving the offender of its use. There is some 
evidence that impoundment and immobilization are as 
effective as forfeiture as well as less costly and time-
consuming for enforcement officials.64 

In spite of the availability and apparent effectiveness 
of these responses, they are often not employed by 
police and prosecutors.65 


13.Confiscating license plates from convicted drunk 
drivers. Confiscating the license plates of convicted 
drunk drivers is an effective way to discourage them from 
further drunk driving because it raises the probability 
that they will be stopped by police.66 Confiscation is a 
judicial sanction in some U.S. states and an administrative 
one in others. There is some evidence that confiscation 
of license plates would be more effective if it were more 
widely used and more widely publicized.67 Alternatively, 
some jurisdictions require convicted drunk drivers to 
display specially-marked license plates on their vehicles.68 

Michael Scott 
Image of license plate
In some states, special license plates are issued to convicted 
drunk drivers to discourage them from driving. 

Sanctioning Convicted Drunk Drivers 

There is an obvious case to be made for tailoring the 
sanctions imposed upon a convicted drunk driver to the 
likelihood that he will repeat the offense in the future. 
The challenge for the courts is to determine which 
offenders are likely to become repeat drunk drivers. 
Many courts require even first-time offenders to undergo 
alcohol assessments to determine whether they are social 
or problem drinkers. There is evidence that high blood 
alcohol concentration and a prior history of drunk 
driving or other traffic violations are significant predictors 
that an offender is likely to drink and drive again.69 In 
jurisdictions where they are in use, the data from alcohol 
ignition interlocks (see Response 14 below) can be useful 
in predicting who is likely to continue drinking and 
driving.70 


14. 
Requiring convicted drunk drivers to install electronic 
ignition locks on their vehicles. Electronic ignition locks 
(interlocks) have been shown to be effective in reducing 
the likelihood that a convicted drunk driver will be 
rearrested for drunk driving, at least while the ignition lock 
requirement remains in effect.71, However, the deterrent 
effect does not necessarily last once the requirement 
is lifted.72 Drivers ordered to use ignition locks are 
commonly charged for their installation and maintenance. 
Where interlocks are optional, any alternative sanction 
should be sufficiently harsh to motivate the offender to 
use the interlock.73 Where the device requires a driver to 
periodically retest in order to keep the engine running, an 
offender is less likely to enlist a sober person to start the 
vehicle. One of the advantages of interlocks over license 
revocation and vehicle confiscation is that it allows the 
offender and his family to continue to use the vehicle for 
legitimate purposes such as employment. Obviously, this 
response will not be effective where a convicted driver 
has access to other vehicles that are not equipped with 
interlocks. 

15. 
Requiring convicted drunk drivers to complete alcohol 
assessment, counseling, or treatment programs. There 
is some evidence that successful completion of mandatory 
alcohol assessment and treatment programs can reduce 
the likelihood that those with clinically diagnosed alcohol 
problems will be rearrested for drunk driving.74 Depending 
on the quality of the program, the incidence of repeat 
drunk driving and alcohol-related crashes can be reduced 
by as much as 5 to 10 percent.75 There is some hope that 
new pharmaceutical treatments for alcoholism may also 
help reduce drunk driving by hard-core drunk drivers; as 
of yet, however, such treatments have not been widely 
tested.76 


 Ignition interlock devices require 
the driver to blow into a device 
that is connected to the vehicles 
ignition. If the drivers blood alcohol 
concentration is above a set point, 
usually around .02, the vehicle will 
not start. 


16. Confining convicted drunk drivers to their homes. 
In lieu of incarceration, some jurisdictions sentence 
convicted drunk drivers to home confinement. 
Compliance is typically monitored electronically. There is 
conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of home 
confinement.77 

Monitoring Drunk Drivers 

17. Closely monitoring high-risk drunk drivers. Closely 
monitoring drivers who have demonstrated that they are 
at high risk for driving while impaired has the potential to 
reduce the likelihood that they will be involved in alcohol-
related traffic crashes.78 Such monitoring can be done by 
police, corrections officials, or treatment providers. 

However, at least one intensive supervision programa 
day treatment center that provided supervision, reporting, 
employment, counseling, education, and community 
resource referrals in a nonresidential facilitydid 
not prove to be any more effective at reducing repeat 
offending than did a standard probation program.79 


Reducing Alcohol Consumption 

18. Reducing the consumption of alcohol. Reducing 
the total volume of alcohol consumed in a community 
can have a number of positive effects on public safety, 
including a reduction in drunk driving. This is especially 
true when young drivers are denied alcohol.80, Alcohol 
consumption can be reduced in a variety of ways, 
including: 

 
increasing the price of alcohol by raising taxes or 
prohibiting discount sales81 
 
restricting the number of bars and liquor stores 
 
strict enforcement of the drinking age 
 
regulating drink specials 
 
raising public awareness through educational 
campaigns.


19. Suing alcohol beverage servers for serving 
intoxicated patrons who then drive and cause 
traffic injuries. Lawsuits brought against persons and 
establishments that serve alcohol to patrons who then 
drive while intoxicated and cause injury (so-called dram 
shop liability) can potentially discourage overserving 
patrons, thereby reducing drunk driving.82 However, 
the effectiveness of this response is limited because 
such suits are relatively rare, some jurisdictions protect 
licensed servers from such liability, and liability awards 
are often paid by insurance companies rather than by 
the offender directly.83 Liability insurers sometimes 
offer lower premiums to establishments that adopt 
responsible service practices, but some owners choose 
not to purchase liability insurance and either close their 
businesses or declare bankruptcy if they are sued.84 

 See the POP Guides on Assaults 
in and Around Bars and Underage 
Drinking for further information 
about ways to reduce alcohol 
consumption. 

 See the POP Guide on Underage 
Drinking for further guidance on 
controlling minors access to alcohol. 

 However, too few sales outlets 
may result in drinkers driving farther 
to get alcohol, thereby increasing the 
risk they will be involved in alcohol-
related crashes. 



Suits against private individuals are even more rare and 
difficult to win than suits against business owners.85 For a 
variety of reasons, both licensed servers and private hosts 
are reluctant to intervene in the drinking habits of their 
guests and patrons. 

20. 
Training alcohol beverage servers to recognize signs 
of impairment and enforcing laws prohibiting serving 
impaired patrons. Beverage server training programs have 
shown some positive effects in reducing alcohol-related 
traffic crashes in the jurisdictions where they have been 
adopted, but mandatory programs do not appear to be any 
more effective than do optional ones.86, Servers learn how 
to promote eating, to slow drinking, to call for alternative 
transportation, to stop serving, and to have drinkers wait 
before driving. Sufficiently strict enforcement of laws 
prohibiting serving intoxicated patrons is essential in 
motivating servers to heed the advice of these programs; 
otherwise, the pressure to continue serving intoxicated 
patrons can be too great for many servers to resist. One of 
the dilemmas of mandatory training is that in jurisdictions 
where successful completion of a training program confers 
immunity on a server, its net effect may be to shield 
servers from dram shop liability without substantially 
reducing the likelihood that intoxicated patrons will be 
served.87 On balance, however, responsible beverage 
service training appears to be a good idea.88 

 The states of Oregon and 
Wisconsin mandate such server 
training. 

21. 
Enforcing laws prohibiting serving minors and 
intoxicated persons. Enforcement of laws that are 
designed to prohibit serving minors and intoxicated 
persons in licensed establishments can help control a range 
of alcohol-related problems, including drunk driving.89 
Enforcement efforts should be targeted at establishments 
where a high proportion of drunk drivers were last 



drinking.90 Unfortunately, such enforcement is rare 
in most jurisdictions, especially as it relates to serving 
intoxicated persons. This may be because police and 
other enforcement agents feel that they lack the resources 
to devote to this activity, perceive that provable cases are 
difficult to make, or are reluctant to face resistance from 
the restaurant and tavern industry.91 

Public Education 

22. Discouraging drinking and driving through public 
education and awareness campaigns. It is difficult 
to change public attitudes and behaviors with respect to 
drinking and driving through public education campaigns, 
at least in the short-term. This is especially true among 
those at highest risk for drunk driving. Nonetheless, such 
programs can help build public support for addressing 
the problem and can help publicize changes in drunk 
driving laws.92 When they are used, public education 
and awareness campaigns to discourage drinking and 
driving should be tailored to particular segments of 
the population.93 Although young drivers are especially 
difficult to persuade, such campaigns are more likely to 
be effective if they exploit the influence of peers on the 
behavior of young drivers and emphasize the negative 
social consequences of drinking and driving rather than 
the health and legal risks.94 Programs that seek to correct 
young peoples misperceptions about how much their 
peers drink (so-called social norming) hold promise for 
reducing alcohol consumption. Messages that focus on 
alternate forms of transportation, knowing when one has 
reached the point of intoxication, helping out friends 
who are too drunk to drive, and the provisions and 

 See the Underage Drinking POP 
Guide for further information on 
reducing young peoples alcohol 
consumption. 

 The Wichita, Kansas, Police 
Department (1998) offered free 
alcohol breath tests to drinking 
patrons at bars, clubs, concerts, and 
festivals as part of an effort to teach 
young drinkers to recognize when 
their intoxication was approaching 
the level at which it was unlawful for 
them to drive. 


enforcement of new drunk driving laws are most likely 
to be effective.95 Teaching young people how to keep 
their peers from driving while intoxicated is effective,96 
as are school-based programs intended to discourage 
students from riding with drunk drivers.97 Young people 
are more willing to intervene effectively to prevent their 
peers from driving while intoxicated than are adults. The 
use of celebrities and appeals to fear and emotion are not 
particularly effective among young people.98 

Image of drunk driving awareness sign
While it is difficult to change public behaviors 
with respect to drinking and driving, publicity 
campaigns can help build support within the 
community for addressing the problem. 


Alternative Transportation 

23. Providing alternative transportation options to 
drinking drivers. Alternative transportation options 
include designated drivers and free taxi or limousine 
rides. There is evidence that drinking drivers, even 
heavy drinkers, will use alternative transportation if it 
is made readily available.99 There is also evidence that 
alternative transportation programs can significantly 
reduce the incidence of drunk driving and alcohol-related 
traffic crashes and injuries.100 Such programs are most 
successful when drivers are not forced to leave their 
vehicles at the drinking location: the best programs take 
the drinker to the drinking location and then return him 
to his home. 

Designated driving is now a well-established method 
for avoiding drunk driving, particularly among U.S. 
college students.101 However, there are any number of 
ways in which designated driving plans can go awry: the 
designated driver can change his mind and drink; the 
vehicle owner can change his mind and refuse to allow 
the sober person to drive; the drinkers in the group can 
drink more heavily than they would otherwise, which 
in turn can cause other problems.102 To date, there is 
insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of designated 
driver campaigns, either those directed at the general 
population or those targeting patrons of particular 
drinking establishments.103 However, designated driving 
appears to be a good idea that should continue to be 
promoted even if it is not as effective as was originally 
hoped. 

 A pilot program in Wisconsin 
used business marketing principles 
to develop and promote taxi 
and limousine transportation to, 
from, and between bars in a rural 
community. Rather than trying to 
discourage drinking, the initiative 
acknowledged the local bar culture 
and sought to address patrons 
specific reasons for driving after 
drinking (Karsten and Rothschild, 
2003). An initiative in Wisconsin 
known as SafeRide that provides 
funding assistance to taverns to 
promote alternative transportation 
for patrons is partially funded 
by a surcharge on drunk driving 
convictions. An evaluation of the 
initiative concluded that it is cost-
effective (Wisconsin Department of 
Transportation, 2005). 


Environmental Design 

24. 
Locating licensed establishments in areas that 
reduce the need for patrons to drive. Limiting 
the number of licensed establishments that are only 
accessible by car seemingly has the potential to reduce 
drunk driving; however, the effectiveness of this 
response has not been properly evaluated.104 Obviously, 
there are practical limits as well, especially in rural 
areas. There are, however, strong arguments in favor 
of distributing licensed establishments throughout a 
community and sufficiently close to residential areas so 
that at least some patrons can walkor at least not drive 
farto these establishments. 

25. 
Relaxing or staggering mandatory bar closing times. 
As may also be the case with other alcohol-related 
problems, relaxing or staggering mandatory closing times 
has the potential to lower the concentration of impaired 
drivers on the roads immediately after all the bars 
close. However, whether the net effect of this measure 
would be to increase overall alcohol consumption or to 
encourage drinkers to drive in search of a bar with a later 
closing time has not been studied. 



Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

26. Increasing the severity of penalties for drunk 
driving. By itself, increasing the severity of penalties 
for drunk driving does not appear to have a significant 
deterrent effect.105 This is so for several reasons: 

 
Most drunk drivers do not believe they are likely to get 
caught on any particular trip, so they tend not to take 
the severity of the punishment into account. 
 
If police officers believe that the potential punishment 
is unduly harsh, they may be less likely to arrest drunk 
drivers. So too with judges and jurors, who may be less 
likely to convict or impose stiff penalties. 
 
Incarcerating more drunk drivers or incarcerating 
them for longer periods can so overburden existing jail 
resources that police are forced to curtail drunk driving 
enforcement.106 


27. Incarcerating convicted drunk drivers. Although 
the general public is likely to insist upon punishing 
drunk driversparticularly repeat offendersresearch 
suggests that conventional punishments such as fines 
and incarceration are among the least effective methods 
of controlling drunk driving.107 In addition, using jail 
resources for drunk drivers becomes more difficult to 
justify as those resources become scarce. The threat 
of incarceration, however, is often useful as leverage 
to compel convicted drunk drivers to accept alternate 
sanctions such as alcohol treatment, alcohol ignition 
interlocks, or vehicle forfeiture. 


Even where jail time is required by law, many offenders 
do not actually spend the mandatory minimum time 
in jail. There are a variety of ways around mandatory 
minimums: for example, some offenders are credited 
with having served a full day in jail even if they are 
only incarcerated for a few hours. Moreover, mandatory 
minimum jail sentences raise the stakes of drunk driving 
convictions, which in turn leads to more vigorous legal 
defenses, delays in case processing, fewer guilty pleas, jail 
and court crowding, and so forth, all of which creates 
a counter-pressure to process drunk driving cases more 
quickly.108 

28. 
Fining convicted drunk drivers. Fining convicted 
drunk drivers has not shown any significant deterrent 
effect, either on the offender or the general public.109 
There is typically a high rate of failure to pay fines by 
convicted offenders. The primary purpose of fines is to 
offset the cost of enforcing drunk driving laws and of 
processing cases. 

29. 
Recovering costs from drunk drivers. Some 
jurisdictions allow the police to recover the costs of 
processing drunk driving arrests.110 Although the 
effectiveness of this response has not been adequately 
evaluated, there is little reason to believe that it has any 
greater deterrent effect than does the imposition of 
fines. It does have the advantage, however, of channeling 
revenue back to police, which should reinforce 
enforcement efforts. 

30. 
Requiring drunk drivers to listen to victim impact 
panels. Victim impact panels force convicted drunk 
drivers to listen to testimonyfrom the victims of drunk 
driving, their family members, the police, and medical 
professionalsregarding the impact that drunk driving 
has on individuals and society. In spite of the powerful 



and immediate emotional impact of these panels, their 
effectiveness seems to be short-lived: the evidence is that 
they only prevent offenders from being rearrested in the 
short term, usually within two years.111 Moreover, their 
impact appears to depend heavily upon the particular 
testimony of the panelists, something that is difficult to 
standardize.112 

31. 
Prohibiting drive-up alcohol sales. Although 
permitting drivers to purchase alcohol through drive-
up windows appears to be a bad idea for a number of 
reasons, there is inconclusive evidence that the practice 
has any significant effect on alcohol-related crashes.113 
This is probably because it is relatively easy to purchase 
alcoholeven if a driver has to step out of his vehicle 
to do soas most convenience stores and many gas 
stations sell alcoholic beverages. 

32. 
Providing driver education courses in high schools. 
One unfortunate effect of providing driver education 
courses in high schools is that it encourages more young 
drivers to get their licenses, which in turn leads to more 
young drivers getting in alcohol-related crashes.114 This 
is not to say that driver education courses do not have 
positive effects, but rather that their effectiveness in 
reducing drunk driving appears to be limited. 



Appendix: Summary of Responses to 
Drunk Driving 

The table below summarizes various responses to drunk 
driving, the mechanisms by which these responses are 
intended to work, the conditions under which they should 
work best, and factors that should be considered before a 
particular response is implemented. It is critical that you 
tailor responses to local circumstances and that you can 
justify each response based upon reliable analysis. In most 
cases, an effective strategy will involve several different 
responses, because law enforcement alone is seldom 
effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
Legislation 
1. 18 Reducing the 
legal limit 
of per se 
violations 
Increases the 
probability 
of successful 
prosecution of 
drunk driving 
charges; subjects 
more dangerous 
drivers to legal 
sanctions; 
 reinforced by 
adequate enforcement 
at the lower limits 
3ROLFH RIFHUV PD\ EH 
unwilling to enforce if they 
do not understand the risk 
of driving at lower limits; 
enforcement at lower limits 
will increase the number of 
cases in the courts 
communicates 
societal 
intolerance for 
drinking and 
driving 


41 

Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
2. 19 Requiring 
drivers to 
submit to 
blood alcohol 
testing when 
arrested for 
Increases both 
the certainty of 
arrest when a 
stop is made and 
the probability 
of successful 
 police have the 
authority to demand 
testing of drivers 
stopped at random 
In the United States, police 
must establish probable 
cause in order to demand 
testing 
drunk driving prosecution; 
provides drivers 
with social 
MXVWLFDWLRQ IRU 
not drinking 
3. 20 Raising the 
minimum legal 
drinking age 
Reduces the 
overall alcohol 
consumption of 
inexperienced, 
high-risk drivers 
 enforcement levels 
are high enough to 
convince underage 
drivers that they face 
a substantial risk of 
arrest; legislation 
and enforcement is 
Strict enforcement can 
substantially increase court 
caseloads 
supported by parents 
4. 20 Prohibiting 
open alcohol 
containers 
in moving 
vehicles 
Reduces the 
likelihood that 
a driver will 
consume alcohol 
while driving 
 adequately 
enforced; prohibition 
applies equally to 
drivers and passengers 
Provides police with 
DGGLWLRQDO MXVWLFDWLRQ IRU 
stopping suspected drunk 
drivers 
5. 20 Requiring 
drivers and 
passengers to 
wear seat belts 
Reduces the risk 
of serious injury 
when a crash 
occurs 
 adequately 
enforced 
Some jurisdictions may not 
authorize police stops solely 
on the basis of seat belt 
violations 
Enforcement 
6. 21 Increasing the 
number of 
police stops 
of suspected 
drunk drivers 
Increases the 
perceived risk 
of apprehension 
among drinking 
drivers 
 SROLFH RIFHUV KDYH 
viable alternatives to 
custodial arrest for 
some stopped drivers; 
SROLFH RIFHUV KDYH 
Competing priorities for 
police attention may limit 
the number of stops 
RIFHUV FDQ UHDOLVWLFDOO\ 
PDNH SROLFH RIFHUV PXVW 
during high-
risk times of 
day 
VXIFLHQW UHVRXUFHV WR 
make a high number 
of stops 
believe that their reasonable 
exercise of discretion in 
employing alternatives to 
arrest will be supported 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
7. 22 Conducting 
sobriety 
checkpoints 
Increases the 
perceived risk 
of apprehension 
among drinking 
drivers 
 the public 
supports the practice; 
RIFHUV DUH SURSHUO\ 
trained to detect 
impaired drivers 
Legal requirements must 
be met; checkpoints 
should be highly visible 
to maximize their general 
deterrent effect; because 
they can be costly to 
conduct, checkpoints 
are not necessarily thePRVW HIFLHQW PHWKRG RI 
stopping drunk drivers 
8. 24 Training police 
RIFHUV WR 
detect impaired 
drivers 
Increases the 
probability of 
arrest once a 
stop is made; 
increases the 
 SROLFH RIFHUV 
believe that 
enforcement is valued 
by the department 
2IFHUV VKRXOG DOVR EH 
trained to detect impairment 
from substances other than 
alcohol 
likelihood of 
successful 
prosecution 
9. 24 Using 
preliminary 
breath testing 
devices 
Increases the 
probability of 
arrest once a 
stop is made; 
increases the 
likelihood of 
successful 
prosecution 
 RIFHUV DUH 
properly trained 
in their use; can 
be administered 
to drivers stopped 
at random (where 
legal) or at sobriety 
checkpoints 
Legal requirements for 
demanding tests must be 
met; costs to purchase and 
maintain devices 
Curtailing Driving Privileges 
10. 25 Administrative 
suspension and 
revocation of 
driver licenses 
Reduces the 
likelihood that 
convicted drunk 
drivers will drive 
while intoxicated 
during periods 
of suspension; 
deters drivers 
through 
threatened 
loss of driving 
privileges 
 jurisdiction has 
adequate resources 
to process cases; 
suspensions are 
routinely and 
promptly imposed 
by an administrative 
agency rather than by 
the courts 
Most suspended or revoked 
drivers continue to drive; 
high volume of cases arising 
from operators who drive 
while suspended or revoked 
can drain criminal justice 
resources; the large number 
of suspended or revoked 
drivers can increase the 
volume of police pursuits 
if drivers attempt to avoid 
apprehension 


43 

Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
11. 26 Imposing 
graduated 
licensing 
systems for 
young drivers 
Reduces 
opportunities for 
inexperienced 
drivers to drive 
under high-risk 
conditions 
 legislation and 
enforcement is 
supported by parents 
Creates hardships for young 
drivers and their parents 
12. 26 Impounding, 
immobilizing,
RU FRQVFDWLQJ 
the vehicles of 
drunk drivers 
Reduces 
opportunities 
for convicted 
drunk drivers 
to continue 
 vehicle is 
actually impounded 
or immobilized; 
threats alone are an 
LQVXIFLHQW GHWHUUHQW 
High costs can be incurred 
impounding, immobilizing, 
and storing vehicles; third 
parties who depend on 
use of the vehicle are also 
driving; deters 
drivers through 
threatened 
penalized 
loss of driving 
privileges 
13. 28 &RQVFDWLQJ 
license plates 
from convicted 
drunk drivers 
Increases the 
probability that a 
convicted driver 
will be stopped 
by police 
 more widely used 
and publicized 
Specially-marked license 
plates indicating the vehicle 
is likely being operated by a 
convicted drunk driver is a 
similar alternative 
Sanctioning Convicted Drunk Drivers 
14. 29 Requiring 
convicted 
drunk drivers 
to install 
electronic 
ignition locks 
on their 
vehicles 
Prevents 
intoxicated 
drivers from 
operating their 
vehicles 
 alternative 
sanctions are severe 
enough to persuade 
drivers to use the 
devices; drivers must 
periodically retest 
to keep the vehicle 
running; drivers 
cannot readily use 
other vehicles 
Deterrent effect not likely 
to last beyond period 
when device is installed; 
minimizes inconvenience to 
others who are dependent 
upon the vehicle 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
15. 29 Requiring 
convicted 
drunk drivers 
to complete 
alcohol 
assessment, 
counseling, 
or treatment 
programs 
Reduces alcohol 
consumption of 
those convicted 
of drunk driving 
 the treatment 
program is of 
high quality and 
demonstrated 
effectiveness 
Not all drunk drivers 
EHQHW IURP WKHVH 
programs; program costs 
can be high 
16. 30 &RQQLQJ 
convicted 
drivers to their 
homes 
Reduces 
opportunities 
for offenders 
to continue 
driving; deters 
drivers through 
threatened 
loss of driving 
privileges 
 monitoring is 
effective 
Electronic monitoring isPRUH HIFLHQW WKDQ SHUVRQDO 
monitoring 
Monitoring Drunk Drivers 
17. 30 Closely 
monitoring 
high-risk drunk 
drivers 
Reduces 
opportunities 
for convicted 
drunk drivers to 
continue driving 
 highest risk drivers 
are selected for 
intensive monitoring 
Labor intensive 
Reducing Alcohol Consumption 
18. 31 Reducing the 
consumption 
of alcohol 
Reduces 
intoxication 
levels of drivers, 
thereby reducing 
the risk of 
vehicle crashes 
 reductions in 
consumption levels 
are substantial 
Public support for measures 
to reduce consumptionPD\ EH GLIFXOW WR REWDLQ LQ 
some jurisdictions 


45 

Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
19. 31 Suing alcohol 
beverage 
servers for 
serving 
intoxicated 
patrons who 
then drive and 
FDXVH WUDIF 
injuries 
Discourages 
serving 
intoxicated 
patrons, thereby 
reducing alcohol 
consumption 
 plaintiffs prevail 
often enough so that 
alcohol beverage 
servers perceive their 
potential liability toEH VLJQLFDQW OLDELOLW\ 
results in actual costs 
to alcohol beverage 
servers 
Some insurance companies 
cover full costs of liability; 
some alcohol beverage 
servers avoid liability by 
becoming judgment proof; 
social norms often work 
against intervening in the 
drinking habits of others 
20. 32 Training 
alcohol 
Reduces 
the alcohol 
 reinforced by the 
owners of licensed 
Mandatory programs have 
not been shown to be more 
beverage 
servers to 
recognize signs 
of impairment 
and enforcing 
laws 
consumption of 
potential drunk 
drivers 
establishments; 
reinforced by 
adequate enforcement 
of alcohol service 
laws 
effective than voluntary 
ones; compliance with 
training regulations may 
provide servers with a 
defense against liability 
prohibiting 
serving 
impaired 
patrons 
21. 32 Enforcing laws 
prohibiting 
serving minors 
and intoxicated 
persons 
Reduces alcohol 
consumption of 
potential drunk 
drivers 
 enforcement is 
VXIFLHQW WR FUHDWH D 
VLJQLFDQW SHUFHSWLRQ 
of risk among servers; 
known problem 
establishments are 
Enforcement resources 
and priorities are often 
inadequate; enforcement 
efforts are often resisted by 
alcohol service industry 
targeted 
Public Education 
22. 33 Discouraging 
drinking 
and driving 
through public 
education and 
awareness 
campaigns 
Discourages 
drinkers from 
driving and 
drivers from 
drinking; builds 
public support 
for a wide range 
of drunk driving 
 education and 
awareness messages 
are carefully targeted 
to particular audiences 
Can be costly to develop 
DQG UXQ GLIFXOW WR PHDVXUH 
effect on behavior 
countermeasures 


Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
Alternative Transportation 
23. 35 Providing 
alternative 
transportation 
options to 
drinking drivers 
Reduces need 
for drinkers to 
drive 
 transportation is 
provided to, from, 
and among drinking 
establishments so 
that drinkers are 
not compelled to 
leave their vehicles 
at a drinking 
establishment; costs 
to drinkers are 
reasonable 
Transportation services can 
be costly to operate 
Environmental Design 
24. 36 Locating 
licensed 
establishments 
in areas that 
reduce the 
need for 
patrons to 
drive 
Reduces the 
need for 
drinkers to drive 
 the public 
understands 
and supports 
locating drinking 
establishments in 
certain areas 
Less viable in rural areas 
where driving is almost 
unavoidable; the public 
may resist locating bars 
and taverns near residential 
areas 
25. 36 Relaxing or 
staggering 
mandatory bar 
closing times 
Reduces the 
concentration 
of drunk 
drivers on the 
road; reduces 
excessive alcohol 
consumption at 
closing time 
 bars and taverns 
are located where 
drinkers do not need 
to drive to reach them 
Net effects not 
demonstrated conclusively 


47 

Response 
No. 
Page 
No. 
Response How It Works Works Best If Considerations 
Responses With Limited Effectiveness 
26. 37 Increasing the 
severity of 
penalties for 
drunk driving 
Typically, certainty of 
apprehension is too low for 
severity of penalties to have 
much deterrent effect; if 
penalties exceed what police 
deem fair, they may be less 
willing to enforce drunk 
driving laws; raising the 
stakes of conviction often 
slows down the adjudication 
process, thereby 
undermining deterrence 
27. 37 Incarcerating 
convicted 
drunk drivers 
Consumes scarce jail 
resources; threat of 
incarceration can be 
effective incentive for 
alternative sanctions 
28. 38 Fining 
convicted 
drunk drivers 
High rates of failure to pay 
QHV DUH W\SLFDO 
29. 38 Recovering law 
enforcement 
costs from 
convicted 
drunk drivers 
Effects not demonstrated 
conclusively; high rates of 
failure to pay are typical 
30. 38 Requiring 
drunk drivers 
to listen to 
victim impact 
panels 
Deterrent effect is short-
lived; effectiveness heavily 
dependent upon skills of 
VSHDNHUV ZKLFK LV GLIFXOW 
to standardize 
31. 39 Prohibiting 
drive-up 
alcohol sales 
Typically, alcohol can easily 
be purchased elsewhere 
32. 39 Providing 
driver 
education 
courses in high 
schools 
Encourages more young 
people to get their licenses, 
which increases the risk of 
crashes 


Endnotes 

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(2002).
2 Cavaiola and Wuth (2002). 
3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Police 

Executive Research Forum, and the U.S. Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999). 
4 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(2003b); Ross (1992); Cavaiola and Wuth (2002). 
5 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(1999a).

6 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997); Caetano and 
Clark (2000); Liu et al. (1997); National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (2003b); Cavaiola and 
Wuth (2002). 

7 Caetano and Clark (2000).

8 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997); Liu et al. 
(1997); National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (2003b); Cavaiola and Wuth (2002). 

9 Ross, McCleary, and LaFree (1990); Wieczorek and 

Coyle (1998); Cavaiola and Wuth (2002). 
10 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997). 
11 Caetano and Clark (2000); Beirness, Mayhew, and 

Simpson (1997); Liu et al. (1997).

12 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Police 
Executive Research Forum, and the U.S. Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999). 
13 Cavaiola and Wuth (2002); McKnight and Voas (2001); 

Voas et al. (1998). 
14 Ross (1992); Goldstein and Susmilch (1982). 
15 Centers for Disease Control (2002); Eisenberg (2003); 

Evans, Nevile, and Graham (1991); Helander (2002); 
McCartt et al. (2001); Presseur, Sol, and Stewart 
(1999); Ross (1992); Saffer and Grossman (1987); 
Shults et al. (2001); Toomey, Rosenfeld, and Wagenaar 
(1996); Voas, Tippetts, and Fell (2003); Cavaiola and 
Wuth (2002). 


16 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997); Jones and 
Lacey (2000); McKnight and Voas (2001); Cavaiola and 
Wuth (2002). 

17 Associated Press (2004a), citing a study by the 
Wisconsin Bureau of Transportation Safety; Beirness, 
Mayhew, and Simpson (1997). 

18 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997). 

19 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

20 Moskowitz and Fiorentino (2000); Ross (1992); Zador, 
Krawchuk and Voas (2000). 

21 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997); McKnight and 
Voas (2001); Ross (1992). 

22 Cavaiola and Wuth (2002); Zador, Krawchuk and 
Voas (2000). 

23 Marowitz (1996). 

24 McKnight and Voas (2001); Ross (1992). 

25 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

26 Snow and Wells-Parker (2001). 

27 Ross (1992). 

28 Associated Press (2004a), citing a study by the 
Wisconsin Bureau of Transportation Safety; Liu et 
al. (1997); McKnight and Voas (2001); Ross (1992); 
Ross, McCleary, and LaFree (1990). See also Zador, 
Krawchuk, and Moore (2000). 

29 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(1999a).

30 Ross (1992). 

31 Voas, Holder, and Gruenewald (1997); Voas, Tippetts, 
and Fell (2000); Dieringer Research Group, Inc. 
(2001); Deshapriya and Iwase (1996). 

32 Lacey and Jones (2000). 


33 Apsler, Char, Harding, and Klein (1999); Dee (2001); 
Eisenberg (2003); Fell and Voas (2003); Helander 
(2002); Mann et al. (2001); Rogers (1995, 1997); Shults 
et al. (2001); U.S. General Accounting Office (1999); 
Voas, Tippetts, and Fell (2000); Voas, Tippetts, and 
Taylor (2002); Deshapriya and Iwase (1996). But see 
Foss, Stewart, and Reinfurt (2001) and Imrie (2004) 
for contrary results. 

34 Helander (2002).

35 McKnight and Voas (2001); Presseur, Sol, and Stewart 
(1999); Shults et al. (2001); Voas, Tippetts, and Fell 
(2003); Blackman et al. (2001); Wagenaar, OMalley, 
and LaFond (2001); Zwerling and Jones (1999); 
Blomberg (1992); Zwerling (1999). 

36 Homel (1988).

37 Wagenaar and Toomey (2002); Evans, Nevile, and 
Graham (1991); Helander (2002); Ross (1992); Shults 
et al. (2001); Voas, Tippetts, and Fell (2003). 

38 Ross (1992). 

39 Snow and Wells-Parker (2001); Stuster, Burns, and 
Fiorentino (2002); Ross (1992); Whetten-Goldstein et 
al. (2000).

40 Stewart and Sweedler (1997); Evans, Nevile, and 
Graham (1991); Helander (2002).

41 Ross (1992). 

42 Lbmann (2002).

43 Mastrofski and Ritti (1996).

44 Goldstein and Susmilch (1982); Jones, Lacey, and 
Wiliszowski (1998); Ross and Voas (1990). See also 
Grosvenor, Toomey, and Wagenaar (1999). 

45 Lancashire Constabulary (1999). 

46 Goldstein and Susmilch (1982). 

47 Elder et al. (2002); Evans, Nevile, and Graham 
(1991); Helander (2002); Lacey, Jones, and Smith 
(1999); McKnight and Voas (2001); Miller, Galbraith, 
and Lawrence (1998); Ross (1992); Shults et al. (2001); 
Stewart and Sweedler (1997). 


48 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(1999a, 2003b).

49 See Fell et al. (2003) for a discussion of the benefits 
and drawbacks of sobriety checkpoints. 

50 Ross (1992). 

51 McKnight and Voas (2001); Elder et al. (2002). 

52 See, for example, Bowman and Stemler (2005). 

53 See also Greene (2003).

54 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

55 Stewart and Sweedler (1997); Homel (1998); Wilson 
and Mann (1990).

56 Helander (2002); McKnight and Voas (2001); Rogers 
(1995); Ross (1992); Stewart and Sweedler (1997); 
Ulmer, Shabanova, and Presseur (2001); Voas and 
DeYoung (2002); Voas, Tippetts, and Fell (2000); 
Whetten-Goldstein et al. (2000); National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (1999b). 

57 McArthur and Kraus (1999); McKnight and Voas 
(2001).

58 Marques, Voas, and Hodgins (1998); McKnight 
and Voas (2001); National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (2003a); Peck and Voas (2002); 
Tippetts and Voas (1998); McCartt, Geary, and Nissen 
(2004).

59 Scopatz et al. (2003); McCartt, Geary, and Nissen 
(2004).

60 McCartt et al. (2001); Presseur, Sol, and Stewart 
(1999); Ross (1992); Ulmer et al. (2000). 

61 DeYoung (1999); Helander (2002); Marques, Voas, 
and Hodgins (1998); McKnight and Voas (2001); Safir, 
Grasso, and Messner (2000); Voas and DeYoung 
(2002): Voas, Tippetts, and Taylor (1997); National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999b). 

62 DeYoung (2000). 

63 Safir, Grasso, and Messner (2000). 

64 Peck and Voas (2002). 


65 Peck and Voas (2002). 

66 Marques, Voas, and Hodgins (1998); McKnight and 
Voas (2001). 

67 Ross, Simon, and Cleary (1996). 

68 Associated Press (2004b); Marques, Voas, and Hodgins 
(1998); Voas, Tippetts, and Lange (1997). 

69 Marowitz (1996). 

70 Marques, Tippetts, and Voas (2001, 2003). 

71 Beck, Rauch, Baker, and Williams (1999); Helander 
(2002); Marques, Voas, and Hodgins (1998); McKnight 
and Voas (2001); Tippetts and Voas (1998); Voas et al. 
(1999, 2002); Weinrath (1997). 

72 Beck, Rauch, Baker, and Williams (1999); Beirness 
(2001); Coben and Larkin (1998); Fulkerson (2003), 
finding positive effect for younger and repeat drunk 
drivers, but not for first-time offenders over the age 
of 30; Tippetts and Voas (1998, 1999). 

73 Marques, Voas, and Hodgins (1998); Tippetts and Voas 
(1998); Voas et al. (2002). 

74 Cavaiola and Wuth (2002); Breckenridge, Winfree, 
Maupin, and Clason (2000); Helander (2002); 
McKnight and Voas (2001); Taxman and Piquero 
(1998); Wells-Parker et al. (1995); DeYoung (1997); 
Pratt, Holsinger, and Latessa (2000). 

75 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

76 Helander (2002).

77 See Helander (2002) for evidence of effectiveness; 
see McKnight and Voas (2001) for evidence of 
ineffectiveness. 

78 Goldstein and Susmilch (1982). 

79 Jones and Lacey (1999). 

80 Wagenaar, Murray, and Toomey (2000); Wilson and 
Mann (1990).

81 Adrian, Ferguson, and Her (2001); Evans, Nevile, and 
Graham (1991); McKnight and Voas (2001); Saffer and 
Grossman (1987).

82 Whetten-Goldstein et al. (2000); Sloan et al. (2000). 


83 McKnight and Voas (2001).

84 Sloan et al. (2000).

85 McKnight and Voas (2001).

86 Holder and Wagenaar (1994); Shults et al. (2001).

87 McKnight and Voas (2001).

88 Simons-Morton and Cummings (1997).

89 McKnight and Voas (2001). But see Sloan et al. (2000), 
concluding that enforcement of over-serving and 
serving minors laws does not significantly deter these 
practices.

90 Peel Regional Police (1996).

91 Sloan et al. (2000).

92 Williams (1994); Yanovitsky (2002); Blomberg (1992).

93 DeJong and Atkin (1995); Helander (2002); Dieringer 
Research Group, Inc. (2001).

94 DeJong and Atkin (1995); Glendon and Cernecca 
(2003); Elder et al. (2005); Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (1999).

95 DeJong and Atkin (1995); McKnight and Voas (2001); 
Yanovitsky (2002).

96 McKnight and Voas (2001).

97 Elder et al. (2005).

98 DeJong and Atkin (1995).

99 Caudill, Harding, and Moore (2000, 2001); Simons-
Morton and Cummings (1997). 

100 Lacey, Jones, and Anderson (2000); Chaptman (2004); 
Ross (1992). 

101 DeJong and Winsten (1999); National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (1999a); Roeper and Voas 
(1999).

102 Timmerman et al. (2003). 

103 Ditter et al. (2005).

104 See Gruenewald, Johnson, and Treno (2002) for a 
discussion of some of the issues relating to the 
density of drinking outlets and drunk driving. 


105 Evans, Nevile, and Graham (1991); Fradella (2000); 
Ross (1992); Ross and Voas (1990); Sen (2001); Stewart 
and Sweedler (1997); Taxman and Piquero (1998). 

106 Kinkade and Leone (1992); Ross (1992). 

107 Helander (2002); McKnight and Voas (2001); Dieringer 
Research Group, Inc. (2001). 

108 Ross, McCleary, and LaFree (1990); Ross and Voas 
(1990).

109 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

110 Bishop (1987).

111 Polacsek et al. (2001); Rojek, Coverdill, and Fors 
(2003); Wheeler et al. (2004). 

112 Rojek, Coverdill, and Fors (2003). 

113 Lapham et al. (2004); Lewis, Lapham, and Skipper 
(1998); Ross (1992). 

114 Ross (1992). 


References 

Adrian, M., B. Ferguson and M. Her (2001). Can Alcohol 
Price Policies Be Used To Reduce Drunk Driving? 
Evidence From Canada. Substance Use & Misuse 
36(13): 1923-1957. 

American Prosecutors Research Institute (2004). The Drug 
Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program: Targeting 
Hardcore Impaired Drivers. Alexandria (Virginia): 
American Prosecutors Research Institute. Accessible 
at www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/drug_evaluation_ 
classification_dec.pdf 

Apsler, R., A. Char, W. Harding and T. Klein (1999). The 
Effects of .08 BAC Laws. Washington, D.C.: National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Associated Press, 21,000 Drunken Drivers on the Road 
Daily, May 24, 2004. 

 Red License Plates for Ohio Drunk Drivers, 
Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 12, 2004. 

Beck, K., W. Rauch, E. Baker and A. Williams (1999). 
Effects of Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on 
Drivers With Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A Random 
Trial in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health 
89(11): 1696-1700. 

Beirness, D. (2001). Best Practices for Alcohol Interlock 
Programs. Ottawa (Ontario): Traffic Injury Research 
Foundation. 


Beirness, D., D. Mayhew and H. Simpson (1997). Highlights 
of DWI Repeat Offenders: A Review and Synthesis of the 
Literature. Ottawa (Ontario): Traffic Injury Research 
Foundation. 

Bishop, K. San Jose to Make Drunk-Driving Suspects 
Pay for Police Costs in Arrests. The New York Times, 
December 29, 1987. 

Blackman, K., R. Voas, R. Gullberg and S. Tippetts (2001). 
Enforcement of Zero Tolerance in the State of 
WashingtonEvidence from Breath-Test Records. 
Forensic Science Review 13(2): 77-86. 

Bowman, J., and J. Stemler (2005). Sobriety Checkpoints: 
Doing More Checkpoints with LESS. Police Chief 
72(7). 

Breckenridge, J., L. Winfree, J. Maupin and D. Clason 
(2000). Drunk Drivers, DWI Drug Court Treatment, 
and Recidivism: Who Fails? Justice Research and Policy 
2(1): 87-105. 

Caetano, R., and C. Clark (2000). Hispanics, Blacks and 
Whites Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol: 
Results from the 1995 National Alcohol Survey. 
Accident Analysis and Prevention 32(1): 57-64. 

Caudill, B., W. Harding and B. Moore (2001). DWI 
Prevention: Profiles of Drinkers Who Use Designated 
Drivers. Addictive Behaviors 26: 155-166. 

 (2000). At-Risk Drinkers Use Safe Ride 
Services to Avoid Drinking and Driving. Journal of 
Substance Abuse 11(2): 149-159. 


References 

Cavaiola, A., and C. Wuth (2002). Assessment and Treatment 
of the DWI Offender. New York: Haworth Press. 

Centers for Disease Control (2002). Involvement by 
Young Drivers in Fatal Alcohol-Related Motor-Vehicle 
CrashesUnited States, 1982-2001. Morbidity and 
Mortality Weekly Report 51(48): 1089-1091. 

Century Council (2003). Combating Hard Core Drunk 
Driving: A Sourcebook of Promising Strategies, Laws & 
Programs. Washington, D.C.: Century Council. 

Coben, J., and G. Larkin (1998). Effectiveness of 
Ignition Interlock Devices in Reducing Drunk Driving 
Recidivism. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 

16: 81-87.

Dee, T. (2001). Does Setting Limits Save Lives? The Case 
of the 0.08 BAC Laws. Journal of Policy Analysis and 
Management 20(1): 111-128. 

DeJong, W., and C. Atkin (1995). A Review of National 
Television PSA Campaigns for Preventing Alcohol-
Impaired Driving, 1987-1992. Journal of Public Health 
Policy 16: 59-80. 

DeJong, W., and J. Winsten (1999). The Use of 
Designated Drivers by U.S. College Students. Journal 
of American College Health 47(4): 151-156. 

Deshapriya, E., and N. Iwase (1996). Are Lower Legal 
Blood Alcohol Limits and a Combination of Sanctions 
Desirable in Reducing Drunken Driver-Involved 
Traffic Fatalities and Traffic Accidents? Accident 
Analysis and Prevention 28(6): 721-731. 


DeYoung, D. (2000). An Evaluation of the General 
Deterrent Effect of Vehicle Impoundment on 
Suspended and Revoked Drivers in California. Journal of 
Safety Research 31(2): 51-59. 

 (1999). An Evaluation of the Specific Deterrent 
Effects of Vehicle Impoundment on Suspended, 
Revoked, and Unlicensed Drivers in California. Accident 
Analysis and Prevention 31(1-2): 45-53. 

 (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): 989-998. 

Dieringer Research Group, Inc. (2001). Evaluation of 
Alternatives to Incarceration for Repeat Drunken 
Driving. Milwaukee: State of Wisconsin Department 
of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Safety. 

Ditter, S., R. Elder, R. Shults, D. Sleet, R. Compton and J. 
Nichols (2005). Effectiveness of Designated Driver 
Programs for Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving. 
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(5S): 280-287. 

Eisenberg, D. (2003). Evaluating the Effective of Policies 
Related to Drunk Driving. Journal of Policy Analysis and 
Management 22(2): 249-274. 

Elder, R., J. Nichols, R. Shults, D. Sleet, L. Barrios and 

R. Compton (2005). Effectiveness of School-Based
Programs for Reducing Drinking and Driving and
Riding with Drinking Drivers: A Systematic Review.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(5S):
288-304.



Elder, R., R. Shults, D. Sleet, J. Nichols, S. Zaza and 

R. Thompson (2002). Effectiveness of Sobriety
Checkpoints for Reducing Alcohol-Involved Crashes.
Traffic Injury Prevention 3: 266-274.


Evans, W., D. Nevile and J. Graham (1991). General 
Deterrence of Drunk Driving: Evaluation of Recent 
American Policies. Risk Analysis 11(2): 279-289. 

Fell, J., S. Ferguson, A. Williams and M. Fields (2003). 
Why Are Sobriety Checkpoints Not Widely Adopted 
as an Enforcement Strategy in the United States? 
Accident Analysis and Prevention 39(6): 897-902. 

Fell, J., and R. Voas (2003). The Effectiveness of Reducing 
Illegal Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Limits for 
Driving: Evidence for Lowering the Limit to .05 BAC in 
Canada. Calverton (Maryland): Pacific Institute for 
Research & Evaluation. 

Foss, R., J. Stewart and D. Reinfurt (2001). Evaluation 
of the Effects of North Carolinas 0.08 % BAC Law. 
Accident Analysis and Prevention 33: 507-517. 

Fradella, H. (2000). Mandatory Minimum Sentences: 
Arizonas Ineffective Tool for the Social Control of 
Driving Under the Influence. Criminal Justice Policy 
Review 11(2): 113-135. 

Fulkerson, A. (2003). Blow and Go: The Breath-Analyzed 
Ignition Interlock Device as a Technological Response 
to DWI. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 
29(1): 219-235. 


Glendon, A., and L. Cernecca (2003). Young Drivers 
Responses to Anti-Speeding and Anti-Drink-Driving 
Messages. Transportation Research Part F 6(3): 197-216. 

Goldstein, H., and C. Susmilch (1982). The Drinking-
Driver in Madison: A Study of the Problem and 
the Communitys Response. Development of 
Problem-Oriented Policing Series, Volume II. 
Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School. 
Accessible at http://www.popcenter.org/Library/ 
researcherprojects/DevelopmentofPOPVolII.pdf 

Greene, J. (2003). Battling DUI: A Comparative Analysis 
of Checkpoints and Saturation Patrols. FBI Law 
Enforcement Bulletin 72(1): 1-6. 

Grosvenor, D., T. Toomey and A. Wagenaar (1999). 
Deterrence and the Adolescent Drinking Driver. 
Journal of Safety Research 30(3): 187-191. 

Gruenewald, P., F. Johnson and A. Treno (2002). Outlets, 
Drinking and Driving: A Multilevel Analysis of 
Availability. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 460-468. 

Harvey, J., and J. Caldwell. Towns Liable If Police Let 
Drunks DriveSJC. Boston Globe, August, 1984. 

Helander, C. (2002). DUI Countermeasures in California: 
What Works and What Doesnt, with Recommendations for 
Legislative Reform. Sacramento: California Department 
of Motor Vehicles. 

Holder, H., and A. Wagenaar (1994). Mandated Server 
Training and the Reduction of Alcohol-Involved 
Traffic Crashes: A Time Series Analysis of the Oregon 
Experience. Accident Analysis and Prevention 26(1): 89


97. 


References 

Homel, R. (1998). Policing Alcohol Problems. In T. 
Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing: 
Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP 
Work. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research 
Forum. 

 (1988). Policing and Punishing the Drinking Driver: 
A Study of General and Specific Deterrence. New York: 
Springer-Verlag. 

Imrie, R. Unchanged Drunken Drivers: New Lower Limit 
Shows No Reduction in Fatal Crashes. Wisconsin State 
Journal, July 1, 2004. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (2004). 
Highway Safety Desk Book. Alexandria (Virginia): 
International Association of Chiefs of Police. 
Accessible at http://www.theiacp.org/div_sec_com/ 
committees/HighwaySafteyDeskTop.pdf 

Jones, R., and J. Lacey (2000). State of Knowledge of Alcohol-
Impaired Driving Research on Repeat DWI Offenders. 
Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. 

 (1999). Evaluation of a Day Reporting Center for 
Repeat DWI Offenders. Washington, D.C.: National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Jones, R., J. Lacey and C. Wiliszowski (1998). Problems and 
Solutions in DWI Enforcement Systems. Washington, D.C.: 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 


Karsten, C., and M. Rothschild (2003). The Road Crew 
Final Report. Madison: Wisconsin Department of 
Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety. NHTSA 
Discretionary Cooperative Agreement, DTNH22-01-
H-07010. Accessible at http://www.dot.wisconsin. 
gov/library/publications/topic/safety/roadcrew.pdf 

Lacey, J., and R. Jones (2000). Evaluation of Changes in New 
Mexicos Anti-DWI Efforts. Washington, D.C.: National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Lacey, J., R. Jones and E. Anderson (2000). Evaluation of 
a Full-Time Ride Service Program: Aspen, Colorados Tipsy 
Taxi Service. Washington, D.C.: National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. 

Lacey, J., R. Jones and R. Smith (1999). Evaluation of 
Checkpoint Tennessee: Tennessees Statewide Sobriety 
Checkpoint Program. Washington, D.C.: National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Lancashire Constabulary (1999). DrinkLink Initiative. 
Submission for the Tilley Award in Problem-Oriented 
Policing. 

Lapham, S., P. Gruenewald, L. Remer and L. Layne 
(2004). New Mexicos 1998 Drive-up Liquor Window 
Closure. Study I: Effect on Alcohol-involved Crashes. 
Addiction 99(5): 598-606. 

Lewis, N., S. Lapham and B. Skipper (1998). Drive-Up 
Liquor Windows and Convicted Drunk Drivers: A 
Comparative Analysis of Place of Purchase. Accident 
Analysis and Prevention 30(6): 761-772. 


References 

Liu, S., P. Siegel, R. Brewer, A. Mokdad, D. Sleet and M. 
Serdula (1997). Prevalence of Alcohol-Impaired 
Driving: Results From a National Self-Reported 
Survey of Health Behaviors. JAMA: Journal of the 
American Medical Association 277(2): 122-125. 

Lbmann, R. (2002). Drunk Driving: Probability of 
Detection and Its Perception. Policing: An International 
Journal of Police Strategies & Management 25(4): 770-788. 

Mann, R., S. Macdonald, G. Stoduto, S. Bondy, B. Jonah 
and A. Shaikh (2001). The Effects of Introducing 
or Lowering Legal Per Se Blood Alcohol Limits for 
Driving: An International Review. Accident Analysis 
and Prevention 33: 569-583. 

Marowitz, L. (1996). Predicting DUI Recidivism: Volume 1. 
Blood Alcohol Concentration and Driver Record Factors. 
Sacramento: California Department of Motor 
Vehicles. 

Marques, P., A. Tippetts and R. Voas (2003). Comparative 
and Joint Prediction of DUI Recidivism from Alcohol 
Ignition Interlock and Driver Records. Journal of 
Studies on Alcohol 64: 83-92. 

 (2001). Predicting Repeat DUI Offenses with 
the Alcohol Interlock Recorder. Accident Analysis and 
Prevention 33(5): 609-619. 

Marques, P., R. Voas and D. Hodgins (1998). Vehicle 
Interlock Programs: Protecting the Community 
Against the Drunk Driver. Journal of Prevention & 
Intervention in the Community 17: 33-46. 


Mastrofski, S., and R. Ritti (1996). Police Training 
and the Effects of Organization on Drunk Driving 
Enforcement. Justice Quarterly 13(2): 290-320. 

McArthur, D., and J. Kraus (1999). The Specific 
Deterrence of Administrative Per Se Laws in Reducing 
Drunk Driving Recidivism. American Journal of 
Preventive Medicine 16(1S): 68-75. 

McCartt, A., L. Geary and W. Nissen (2004). 
Observational Study of the Extent of Driving While 
Suspended for Alcohol-Impaired Driving. Impaired 
Driving Update, Spring. 

McCartt, A., W. Leaf, C. Farmer, S. Ferguson and A. 
Williams (2001). Effects of Floridas Graduated 
Licensing Program on the Behaviors and Attitudes of 
Teenagers. Journal of Safety Research 32: 119-131. 

McKnight, A., and R. Voas (2001). Prevention of 
Alcohol-Related Road Crashes. In N. Heather, T. 
Peters and T. Stockwell (eds.), International Handbook 
of Alcohol Dependence and Problems. Chichester (United 
Kingdom): Wiley. 

Miller, T., M. Galbraith and B. Lawrence (1998). Costs 
and Benefits of a Community Sobriety Checkpoint 
Program. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 59: 462-468. 

Moskowitz, H., and D. Fiorentino (2000). A Review of 
the Literature on the Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on 
Driving-Related Skills. Washington, D.C.: National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 


References 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2003a). 
Extent of Driving While Suspended for DWI. Traffic 
Safety Facts, No. 278, July 2003. 

 (2003b). National Survey of Drinking and 
Driving Attitudes and Behaviors, 2001. Traffic Safety 
Facts, No. 280, July 2003. 

 (2002). Traffic Safety Facts 2001: Alcohol. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
Accessible at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot/gov/pdf/ 
nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2001/2001alcohol.pdf 

 (1999a). National Survey of Drinking and Driving 
Attitudes and Behavior: 1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Transportation, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. 

 (1999b). Effectiveness of the Ohio Vehicle Action 
and Administrative License Suspension Laws. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

 (1997). The Detection of DWI at BACs Below 0.10. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

 (1992). The Detection of DWI Motorcyclists. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 


 (no date). Drug Evaluation and Classification 
Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. Accessible at http://www.nhtsa.dot. 
gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20C 
ontrol/Articles/Associated%20Files/drepp.pdf 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Police 
Executive Research Forum, and the U.S. Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999). 
Strategies for Success: Combating Juvenile DUI. Washington, 
D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
Accessible at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ 
injury/alcohol/juveniledui/ 

Peck, R., and R. Voas (2002). Forfeiture Programs in 
California: Why So Few? Journal of Safety Research 33: 
245-258. 

Peel Police Department (1996). The Last Drink 
Program. Submission for the Herman Goldstein 
Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Polacsek, M., E. Rogers, W. Woodall, H. Delaney, D. 
Wheeler and N. Rao (2001). MADD Victim Impact 
Panels and Stages-of-Change in Drink Driving 
Prevention. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 62(3): 344-350. 

Pratt, T., A. Holsinger, and E. Latessa (2000). Treating 
the Chronic DUI Offender: Turning Point Ten Years 
Later. Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 271-281. 

Presseur, D., C. Sol and K. Stewart (1999). A Guide to 
Zero Tolerance and Graduated Licensing: Two Strategies 
That Work. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 


References 

Roeper, P., and R. Voas (1999). Underage Drinkers are 
Separating Drinking from Driving. American Journal of 
Public Health 89(5): 755-757. 

Rogers, P. (1997). The Specific Deterrent Impact of 
Californias 0.08 % Blood Alcohol Concentration Limit 
and Administrative Per Se License Suspension Laws. 
Sacramento: California Department of Motor 
Vehicles. 

 (1995). The General Deterrent Impact of Californias 

0.8 % Blood Alcohol Concentration Limit and Administrative
Per Se License Suspension Laws. Sacramento: California
Department of Motor Vehicles.


Rojek, D., J. Coverdill and S. Fors (2003). The Effect of 
Victim Impact Panels on DUI Rearrest Rates: A Five-
Year Follow-Up. Criminology 41(4): 1319-1340. 

Ross, H. (1992). Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for 
Saving Lives. New Haven (Connecticut): Yale University 
Press. 

Ross, H., R. McCleary, and G. LaFree (1990). Can 
Mandatory Jail Laws Deter Drunk Driving? The 
Arizona Case. Criminology 81(1): 156-170. 

Ross, H., S. Simon and J. Cleary (1996). License Plate 
Confiscation for Persistent Alcohol Impaired Drivers. 
Accident Analysis and Prevention 28(1): 53-61. 

Ross, H., and R. Voas (1990). The New Philadelphia 
Story: The Effects of Severe Punishment for Drunk 
Driving. Law & Policy 12(1): 51-77. 


Saffer, H., and M. Grossman (1987). Beer Taxes, the 
Legal Drinking Age, and Youth Motor Vehicle 
Fatalities. Journal of Legal Studies 16: 351-374. 

Safir, H., G. Grasso and R. Messner (2000). The New 
York City Police Department DWI Forfeiture 
Initiative. In H. Laurell and F. Schlyter (eds.), Alcohol, 
Drugs and Traffic Safety  T 2000: Proceedings of the 15th 
International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, 
Vol. 3, Sweden, May 22-26, 2000. 

Scopatz, R., C. Hatch, B. DeLucia and K. Tays (2003). 
Unlicensed to Kill: The Sequel. Washington, D.C.: AAA 
Foundation for Traffic Safety. 

Sen, A. (2001). Do Stricter Penalties Deter Drinking 
and Driving? An Empirical Investigation of Canadian 
Impaired Driving Laws. Canadian Journal of Economics 
34(1): 149-164. 

Shults, R., R. Elder, D. Sleet, J. Nichols, M. Alao, V. 
Carande-Kulis, S. Zaza, D. Sosin and R. Thompson 
(2001). Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions 
to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving. American Journal 
of Preventive Medicine 21(4): 66-88. 

Simons-Morton, B., and S. Cummings (1997). Evaluation 
of a Local Designated Driver and Responsible Server 
Program to Prevent Drinking and Driving. Journal of 
Drug Education 27(4): 321-333. 

Simpson, H., and R. Robertson (2001). DWI System 
Improvements for Dealing with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: 
Enforcement. Ottawa (Ontario): Traffic Injury Research 
Foundation. 


References 

Sloan, F., E. Stout, K. Whetton-Goldstein and L. Liang 
(2000). Drinkers, Drivers, and Bartenders: Balancing Private 
Choices and Public Accountability. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press. 

Snow, R., and E. Wells-Parker (2001). Relationships 
Between Drinking Problems and Drinking Locations 
Among Convicted Drinking Drivers. American Journal 
of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 27(3): 532-542. 

Stewart, K., and B. Sweedler (1997). Driving Under the 
Influence of Alcohol. In M. Plant , E. Single and T. 
Stockwell (eds.), Alcohol: Minimising the Harm: What 
Works? London: Free Association Books. 

Stuster, J., M. Burns and D. Fiorentino (2002). Open 
Container Laws and Alcohol Involved Crashes: Some 
Preliminary Data. Washington, D.C.: National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. 

Timmerman, M., E. Geller, K. Glindermann and A. 
Fournier (2003). Do the Designated Drivers of 
College Students Stay Sober? Journal of Safety Research 
34(2): 127-133. 

Tippetts, A., and R. Voas (1998). The Effectiveness of 
the West Virginia Interlock Program. Journal of Traffic 
Medicine 26(1-2): 19-24. 

Toomey, T., C. Rosenfeld and A. Wagenaar (1996). The 
Minimum Legal Drinking Age: History, Effectiveness, 
and Ongoing Debate. Alcohol Health and Research 
World 20(4): 213-218. 


Ulmer, R., D. Presseur, A. Williams, S. Ferguson and 

C. Farmer (2000). Effect of Floridas Graduated 
Licensing Program on the Crash Rate of Teenage 
Drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 32: 
527-532. 

Ulmer, R., V. Shabanova and D. Presseur (2001). Evaluation 
of Use and Lose Laws. Washington, D.C.: National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

U.S. General Accounting Office (1999). Highway Safety: 
Effectiveness of State .08 Blood Alcohol Laws. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office. 

Voas, R., K. Blackman, A. Tippetts and P. Marques (2002). 
Evaluation of a Program to Motivate Impaired 
Driving Offenders to Install Ignition Interlocks. 
Accident Analysis and Prevention 34: 449-455. 

Voas, R., and D. DeYoung (2002). Vehicle Action: 
Effective Policy for Controlling Drunk and Other 
High-Risk Drivers? Accident Analysis and Prevention 
34(4): 263-270. 

Voas, R., H. Holder and P. Gruenewald (1997). The 
Effect of Drinking and Driving Interventions 
on Alcohol-Involved Traffic Crashes Within a 
Comprehensive Community Trial. Addiction 92(6): 
221-236. 

Voas, R., P. Marques, A. Tippetts and D. Beirness (1999). 
The Alberta Interlock Program: The Evaluation 
of a Province-Wide Program on DUI Recidivism. 
Addiction 94(12): 1857-1867. 


References 

Voas, R., A. Tippetts and J. Fell (2003). Assessing the 
Effectiveness of Minimum Legal Drinking Age and 
Zero Tolerance Laws in the United States. Accident 
Analysis and Prevention 35(4): 579-587. 

 (2000). The Relationship of Alcohol Safety 
Laws to Drinking Drivers in Fatal Crashes. Accident 
Analysis and Prevention 32(4): 483-492. 

Voas, R., A. Tippetts and J. Lange (1997). Evaluation 
of a Method for Reducing Unlicensed Driving: The 
Washington and Oregon License Plate Sticker Laws. 
Accident Analysis and Prevention 29(5): 627-634. 

Voas, R., A. Tippetts and E. Taylor (2002). The Illinois 
.08 Law: An Evaluation. Journal of Safety Research 33: 
73-80. 

 (1997). Temporary Vehicle Immobilization: 
Evaluation of a Program in Ohio. Accident Analysis 
and Prevention 29(5): 635-642. 

Voas, R., J. Wells, D. Lestina, A. Williams and M. Greene 
(1998). Drinking and Driving in the United States: 
The 1996 National Roadside Survey. Accident Analysis 
and Prevention 30(2): 267-275. 

Wagenaar, A., D. Murray and T. Toomey (2000). 
Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol 
(CMCA): Effects of a Randomized Trial on Arrests 
and Traffic Crashes. Addiction 95(2): 209-217. 


Wagenaar, A., P. OMalley and C. LaFond (2001). 
Lowered Legal Blood Alcohol Limits for Young 
Drivers: Effects on Drinking, Driving, and Driving-
After-Drinking Behaviors in 30 States. American 
Journal of Public Health 91: 801-804. 

Wagenaar, A., and T. Toomey (2002). Effects of 
Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analysis of 
the Literature from 1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on 
Alcohol Supp. No. 14: 206-225. 

Weinrath, M. (1997). The Ignition Interlock Program 
for Drunk Drivers: A Multivariate Test. Crime and 
Delinquency 43(1): 42-59. 

Wells-Parker, E., R. Bangert-Drowns, R. McMillen and 

M. Williams (1995). Final Results From a Meta-
Analysis of Remedial Interventions With Drink/Drive 
Offenders. Addiction 90: 907-926. 

Wheeler, D., E. Rogers, J. Tonigan, and W. Woodall 
(2004). Effectiveness of Customized Victim Impact 
Panels on First-time DWI Offender Inmates. Accident 
Analysis and Prevention 36:29-35. 

Whetten-Goldstein, K., F. Sloan, E. Stout and L. Liang 
(2000). Civil Liability, Criminal Law, and Other 
Policies and Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Fatalities 
in the U.S.: 1984-1995. Accident Analysis and Prevention 
32(6): 723-733. 

Wichita Police Department (1998). Intoxicated Drivers. 
Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for 
Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 


References 

Wieczorek, W., and J. Coyle (1998). Targeting DWI 
Prevention. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the 
Community 17: 15-30. 

Williams, A. (1994). The Contribution of Education and 
Public Information to Reducing Alcohol-Impaired 
Driving. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 10: 197-205. 

Wilson, R., and R. Mann, eds. (1990). Drinking and Driving: 
Advances in Research and Prevention. New York: Guilford 
Press. 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (2005). 2004 
Wisconsin SafeRide Annual Report and Evaluation. 
Madison: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 
Division of State Patrol, Bureau of Transportation 
Safety. Accessible at http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/ 
library/publications/topic/safety/saferide.pdf 

Yanovitsky, I. (2002). Effects of News Coverage on the 
Prevalence of Drunk-Driving Behavior: Evidence 
from a Longitudinal Study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 
63(3): 342-351. 

Zador, P., S. Krawchuk, and R. Voas (2000). Relative 
Risk of Fatal Crash Involvement by BAC, Age, and 
Gender. Washington, D.C.: United States Department 
of Transportation, and National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration. DOT HS 809 050, April. 


Zador, P., S. Krawchuk and B. Moore (2000). Drinking 
and Driving Trips, Stops by the Police, and Arrests: 
Analyses of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking 
and Driving Attitudes and Behavior. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DOT HS 809 
184, December. 

Zwerling, C. (1999). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of 
Low Blood Alcohol Concentration Laws for Younger 
Drivers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 16(Supp. 
1): 76-80. 

Zwerling, C., and M. Jones (1999). Evaluation of the 
Effectiveness of Low Blood Alcohol Concentration 
Laws for Younger Drivers. American Journal of 
Preventive Medicine 16(Supp. 1): 76-80. 


About the Authors 

Michael S. Scott 

Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for Problem-Oriented 
Policing, Inc. and clinical assistant professor at the University of 
Wisconsin-Madison Law School. He was formerly chief of police in 
Lauderhill, Florida; served in various civilian administrative positions 
in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Florida, and New York 
City police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison, 
Wisconsin, Police Department. Scott developed training programs in 
problem-oriented policing at the Police Executive Research Forum 
(PERF). He was the 1996 recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for 
innovation and leadership in policing. He is a judge for the Herman 
Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Scott 
holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelors degree 
from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

Nina J. Emerson 

Nina J. Emerson is the director of the Resource Center on Impaired 
Driving at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. The 
Resource Center was established in 1992 as a collaboration between 
the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the University of 
Wisconsin Law School as a neutral information clearinghouse on 
matters relating to impaired driving issues for judges, prosecutors, 
law enforcement officers, defense attorneys, legislators, educators, 
and citizens. Ms. Emerson holds a law degree from the University 
of Wisconsin Law School and a baccalaureate from Regis College in 
Denver. 


Louis B. Antonacci 

Lou Antonacci is assistant counsel for the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, 
Alabama. He reviewed the research literature on drunk driving 
for this project while he was a student at the University of 
Wisconsin Law School, from which he graduated in 2004. 

Joel B. Plant 

Joel Plant is a third-year student at the University of 
Wisconsin Law School. He assisted with the literature review 
for this guide. Prior to attending law school, he was a crime 
analyst for the Tempe (Arizona) Police Department. Plant 
holds a masters degree from Arizona State University and a 
bachelors degree from Marquette University. 


Recommended Readings 

 
A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 
Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 
guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 
to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 
public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 
provides guidance on whether and how to conduct cost-
effective surveys. 
 
Assessing Responses to Problems: An 
Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, 


by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 
is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. 
It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 
problem-oriented policing efforts. 

 
Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 
(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 
accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 
pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 
document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. 
 
Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 
(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 
volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 
opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 
initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. 



 
Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 
1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 
document produced by the National Institute of Justice 
in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 
provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 
annual award program that recognizes exemplary problem-
oriented responses to various community problems. A 
similar publication is available for the award winners from 
subsequent years. The documents are also available at 
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.
 
Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 
Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 
Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 
describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 
or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 
England and Wales. 
 
Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 
for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 
Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 
1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 
theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 
have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 
prevent crime. 
 
Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 
Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 
analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 
can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 
policing practices. 



Recommended Readings 

 
Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 
(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 
Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 
policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 
how a police agency can implement the concept. 
 
Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 
by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 
Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 
about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 
victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 
to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 
departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 
improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 
securing productive partnerships. 
 
Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 
First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 
Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 
developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 
future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 
is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 
 
Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 
Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 
(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 
rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 
problem-solving process, and provides examples of 
effective problem-solving in one agency. 



 
Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 
Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 
Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 
Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj. 
gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 
basic information on the SARA model and detailed 
suggestions about the problem-solving process. 
 
Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 
Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 
(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 
methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 
20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives. 
 
Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 
Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson 
and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 
at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective 
police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 
problems. 
 
Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 
for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 
police to analyzing problems within the context of 
problem-oriented policing. 
 
Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 
Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 
LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 
many of the basics of research as it applies to police 
management and problem-solving. 



Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides series: 

1. 
Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 
2. 
Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 
3. 
Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 
4. 
Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 
Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 
5. 
False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 
6. 
Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 
7. 
Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 
8. 
Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 
9. 
Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 
10. 
Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 
Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 
11. 
Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 
12. 
Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 
13. 
Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 
14. 
Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 
15. 
Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 
16. 
Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 
17. 
Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 
18. 
Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 
2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 
19. 
Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 



20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. 

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 

21. 
Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 
ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 
22. 
Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 
23. 
Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 
Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 
24. 
Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 
25. 
Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 
26. 
Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak. 
2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 
27. 
Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8 
28. 
Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 
29. 
Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-43-6 
30. 
Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 
31. 
Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 
Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 
32. 
Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-46-0 
33. 
Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 
34. 
Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 
35. 
School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 
ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7 
36. 
Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 
Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 



Response Guides series: 

 The Benefits and Consequences of Police 
Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 

 
Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 
You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 
 
Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 
Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 
2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X 
Problem-Solving Tools series: 


 
Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 
Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 
 
Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 
Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 
 
Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 
Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1932582-49-5 
 
Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 
Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 


Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 
Domestic Violence 
Mentally Ill Persons 
Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses 
Bank Robbery 
Witness Intimidation 
Drive-by Shootings 


Juvenile Runaways 
Exploitation of Trafficked Women 
Problem with Day Laborer Sites 
Child Pornography on the Internet 
Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues 
Traffic Congestion Around Schools 

Problem-Solving Tools 
Forming and Sustaining Problem-Solving Partnerships with 
Businesses 
Risky Facilities 

Response Guides 
Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns 
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 
Video Surveillance of Public Places 

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 
Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 
the Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770 
or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 


FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. 

DOJ Seal