U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

TRAFFIC TECH

Technology Transfer Series

Number 402 February 2011

Many repeat driving-under-the-influence offenders have

serious alcohol problems that make it difficult to curb

their drinking and driving behaviors. About one-third of

all drivers arrested or convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence (DWI/DUI) of alcohol are repeat offenders. Following the model of drug

courts, DUI courts are designed to address the underlying

alcohol problems of repeat DUI offenders.

Drug courts take a rehabilitative approach to justice,

which usually applies to nonviolent, addicted offenders. The Drug Court Model involves the coordination

of the judiciary, prosecution, probation, defense bar,

law enforcement, social services, mental health, and the

treatment community to intervene with chronic offenders to break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and

criminal activity.

In 2003, under a cooperative agreement, NHTSA assisted

the Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts (GAOC)

to establish three specialized DUI courts to treat and

manage cases of offenders convicted of driving under

the influence of alcohol on multiple occasions. All three

DUI courts (Hall County/Gainesville, Clarke County/

Athens, and Chatham County/Savannah) operate independently while following a uniform process coordinated

by the GAOC.

The DUI court strategy uses the authority of the justice

system and includes some common components of drug

courts (e.g., intensive drug treatment, close supervision,

and offender accountability). Additionally, offenders are

under daily supervision and participate in weekly treatment groups, random drug and alcohol screening, selfhelp groups with 12-step programs such as Alcoholics

Anonymous, and meeting with probation officers and

court personnel. The Georgia DUI courts used five program phases: Phase 1 was the orientation and clinical

assessment; Phase 2 was an extended assessment; Phase

3 was active treatment; Phase 4 was relapse prevention;

and Phase 5 was a continuum of care. The supervising

team (treatment providers, probation officials, and court

personnel) met regularly to discuss the progress and to

devise program plans for the each offender. Every two

weeks, offenders met with a judge to be commended

for their hard work (sobriety) or ordered to sanctions for

noncompliance.

The main objective of this study was to determine the

effectiveness of DUI courts in reducing impaired driving

recidivism.

Method

An impact evaluation began when enough court participants graduated and longitudinal data became available

to determine the effectiveness of the DUI courts in reducing recidivism.

The basic design was to collect and compare information on three groups of DUI offenders: DUI court participants or the Intent-to-Treat group (N~600), a retrospective

group of similar DUI offenders who were arrested and

sanctioned in the same counties before DUI courts were

established (N~300), and a contemporary group of DUI

offenders fromdifferentGeorgia counties thatdidnothave

DUI courts (N~400). The Intent-to-Treat group contained

those individuals who completed the DUI court program

as graduates (N=363), and those offenders who started the

DUI court program but did not graduate (N=259) or were

terminated for various reasons (e.g., as non-compliance

with court requirements, returned to jail or prison, mental

health issues, died, moved away, or entered the military).

For some analyses, the terminated group of offenders

were compared to the graduates to assess the general programmatic effect (i.e., the efficacy of assigning offenders

to the DUI court), regardless of whether they completed

all the requirements.

By county, DUI court participants include 294 from Chatham County, 158 from Clarke County, and 170 from

Hall County. All these offenders had at least one prior

DUI or similar alcohol-related offense before their index

offense, except a small number of first offenders who were

assigned to the program due to other aggravating circumstances (e.g., prior drug offenses, high arrest blood alcohol

concentration [BAC], or involvement in a DUI crash causing serious injury).

The Intent-to-Treat group and the retrospective group

involved the same three counties (Chatham, Clarke, and

An Evaluation of the Three Georgia DUI Courts
TRAFFIC TECH is a publication to disseminate information about

traffic safety programs, including evaluations, innovative programs, and new publications. Feel free to copy it as you wish. If you

would like to receive a copy, contact Angela H. Eichelberger, Ph.D.,

Editor, fax 202-366-7394, e-mail: angela.eichelberger@dot.gov.

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-132

Washington, DC 20590

Hall). The contemporary comparison group consisted

of offenders who fit the criteria of the DUI court offenders in the intent-to-treat group, but were arrested and

sanctioned in three other counties that did not have DUI

courts. These were Bibb County (for Chatham), Bulloch

County (for Clarke), and Whitfield County (for Hall).

These counties were selected to match demographics

and socioeconomics of the intent-to-treat group. Approximately 150 DUI offenders from each of the contemporary

group counties were further matched on gender, age, and

number of prior DUI convictions.

Results

Using Cox regression models, the DUI court graduates

had a 63.5 percent lower recidivism (per same equivalent

exposure) than the contemporary comparison group; 79.3

percent lower recidivism than the retrospective comparison group; and 65.1 percent lower recidivism than the terminated group. The recidivism risk curves, pooled across

counties and adjusted for the effects of age and prior DUIs 

are shown in Figure 1. After four years of exposure, the

DUI court graduates’ group displayed a recidivism rate of

approximately 9 percent, compared to almost 24 percent

for the contemporary comparison group, 35 percent for

the retrospective comparison group and 26 percent for the

terminated group. The intent-to-treat group displayed a

recidivism rate of 15 percent after four years of exposure.

Figure 1. Recidivism Rate for DUI and Other Alcohol 

Offenses Pooled Across Counties

Repeat DUI Arrests Prevented

The number of DUI arrests prevented was calculated

using the four-year recidivism rates from the survival

analyses, pooled across all counties and adjusting for significant predictors (prior DUI offenses and age). When the

number prevented was defined as being the gap between

the intent-to-treat group and the graduates only group

recidivism rate versus their contemporary group recidivism rate, there were between 46.8 and 49.4 repeat DUI 

arrests prevented, respectively. When the retrospective

group’s recidivism rate was used, there were between

88.7 and 112.3 repeat DUI arrests prevented for the intentto-treat group and the graduates only group, respectively.

Thus, it appears that the three DUI courts in Georgia prevented between 47 and 112 new DUI arrests.

Predictors of Recidivism

Other factors were also examined that might contribute to

or cause an offender to recidivate (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity/race, and number of prior DUI offenses) to ensure

that the group effect found was not an artifact of some

other factor on which the group might have been differently composed, including differences among counties.

From these other variables tested, only age and prior 

DUIs were significant predictors of recidivism for all four

groups of the offenders examined.

Summary And Conclusion

The three DUI courts did not appear to use substantially

different approaches. Georgia DUI courts demonstrated

substantial reductions in recidivism for repeat DUI

offenders. Even when the terminated offenders are combined with the DUI court graduates, significantly lower

recidivism rates were evident (38% to 65% lower recidivism compared to the offenders in traditional programs)

when all three courts are combined.

The overall finding from this analysis greatly supported

the DUI court concept for reducing recidivism. These

reductions in recidivism rates ranged from 38 percent to

79 percent depending upon the comparison group. The

DUI court program prevented between 47 and 112 repeat

DUI arrests over the four-year period analyzed. Based

upon this study, DUI courts have the potential to reduce

DUI recidivism and the societal costs associated with the

harm caused by the re-arrests of DUI offenders.

How to Order

To order An Evaluation of the Three Georgia DUI Courts 

(64  pages), prepared by Pacific Institute for Research

and Evaluation, write to the Office of Behavioral Safety

Research, NHTSA, NTI-130, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,

Washington, DC 20590,fax 202-366-7394, or download from

www.nhtsa.gov. J. DeCarlo Ciccel was the project manager.

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

Retrospective Comparisons

Contemporary

Comparisons

Program - Graduates

Program–

Terminated

Recidivism Rates

Exposure Time (Years)

15%

10%

5%

0%

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0