Operating under the influence: Three year recidivism rates for motivation-enhancing versus standard care programs

Abstract

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OUI) is an international problem. In the United States, one intervention strategy is to require offenders to attend group-delivered interventions. We compared three year rearrest rates among 12,267 individuals in Maine receiving either a motivation-enhancing (ME) program, Prime For Life(®), or historical standard care (SC) programs. We created two cohorts, one when Maine used SC (9/1/1999-8/31/2000) and one after the ME program was implemented (9/1/2002-8/31/2003). Adjusted for control variables, rearrest rates among people not completing an assigned program did not differ for the ME versus SC cohorts (12.1% and 11.6%, respectively; OR=1.05, ns). In contrast, ME compared to SC program completers had lower rearrest rates (7.4% versus 9.9%, OR=0.73, p<.05). The same pattern occurred for people required to take these programs plus substance use treatment (12.1% versus 14.7%, OR=0.82, p<.01). For those rearrested, time to rearrest did not differ between ME and SC cohorts. Among those required to have substance abuse treatment, ME and SC arrest rates did not differ for younger individuals; otherwise, the ME cohort's lower rearrest rates occurred across gender, age, having a previous OUI, and having completed a previous intervention program.

Emerging adults in substance misuse intervention: preintervention characteristics and responses to a motivation-enhancing program

“…A previous data collection showed PFL to be effective in producing short-term changes in cognitive outcomes [23]. Another study showed that such changes are meaningful and translate into longer-term improvements: in an examination of driving records of PFL attendees in a 2-day version of the program, PFL participants had lower 3-year recidivism rates compared to standard care conditions [24]. In both datasets, changes occurred for emerging adults as well as the broader range of adult participants.…”

A Comparison of Underage, Young, Middle, and Late Adults in Indicated Prevention Following Impaired Driving

“…Consistent with prior research demonstrating the efficacy of PFL as an indicated prevention program, we hypothesized that participants overall would show significant pre–post program improvements in risk perception and behavioral intentions. However, we considered analyses of potential age differences in magnitude of change during the program and status at program completion to be exploratory, given the mixed findings from prior research about age differences on the impact of motivational enhancement‐based DUI programs, including PFL (Beadnell et al, , ; Ouimet et al, )…”

“…First, in an analysis of pre–post evaluation data from 522 individuals convicted of a substance‐related offense in North Carolina, Beadnell et al () showed that PFL produced greater short‐term changes in knowledge, perceived substance‐related risk, and problem recognition than intervention as usual. And second, in an evaluation study in the state of Maine ( N = 12,267), Beadnell, Crisafulli, Stafford, Rosengren, and DiClemente () showed that the 3‐year rearrest rate among drivers who attended PFL after a DUI arrest was lower than the rate for drivers receiving standard educational programs.…”

“…In the North Carolina study, supplemental analyses showed that younger people evidenced the greatest pre–post change (Beadnell et al, ). In the study in Maine, age was examined as a moderator of the effects of PFL (Beadnell et al, ). These analyses found no significant Age × Program interaction for individuals who completed PFL or the standard educational program only.…”

“…These analyses found no significant Age × Program interaction for individuals who completed PFL or the standard educational program only. However, among those who completed substance abuse treatment as well as PFL or standard educational program, there was a significant Age × Program interaction, with PFL showing an advantage relative to standard education for the 40–49 and 50+ age groups but not the 18–29 and 30–39 age groups (Beadnell et al, ). In an additional study (Beadnell, Crisafulli, Stafford, & Casey, ) that specifically examined the short‐term effects of PFL in emerging adults (ages 18–25) in 10 states, the program was shown to help participants transition from high‐risk DUI profiles at baseline to low‐risk DUI profiles at program completion.…”