Introduction

This report provides a comprehensive description of procedures and programs for dealing with driving while impaired (DWI) offenders in each province and territory in Canada. The need for such a report emerges from a recognition that: impaired drivers are an important target group for countermeasure development; there has been a proliferation of approaches and programs for dealing with DWI offenders in the past several years; and, a contemporary and comprehensive description of how each province/territory deals with DWI offenders is not currently available.

Accordingly, in the interest of information sharing and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and cost in developing new programs, a report describing existing procedures and programs for DWI offenders in Canada as well as recommendations for enhancing current efforts is viewed as critical. This report fills this need and serves as a valuable resource for those jurisdictions interested in introducing new programs as well as for those interested in enhancing existing measures.

1.1 Background

Despite encouraging declines over the past decade, impaired driving remains a substantial public health and road safety problem in Canada (Beirness et al., 1994). For example, in 1992, it is estimated that more than 1,600 persons lost their lives in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in Canada. Among drivers killed on Canadian roadways, 48% had been drinking (Mayhew et al., 1993). And, more than 105,000 persons were charged with an impaired driving offence (Fedorowycz, 1994).

Over the past 15 years, a wide variety of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention measures have been implemented to address the drinking-driving problem. Foremost among primary prevention measures have been extensive attempts to educate the public about the dangers of combining alcohol with driving. Secondary prevention measures have focussed on increased and more efficient enforcement. The major thrust of tertiary prevention measures has been on increasing penalties for driving while impaired (DWI) offenders.

As evidence mounted that severe punishments were not effective in deterring either first time or repeat offences (e.g., Martin et al., 1992; Ross and Voas, 1989), both theoretical and empirical examinations of the impaired driving problem shifted focus away from deterrence as a prevention strategy to emphasize rehabilitation. To a large extent, this change in focus has increased recognition of the importance of a particularly high-risk group of drinking drivers -- i.e., those who drive with very high blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) and, in particular, those who do so frequently (Simpson and Mayhew, 1991). For example, it has been well documented that drivers with very high BACs (i.e., over 150 mg%) comprise the majority of drinking-driver fatalities (Fell, 1990; Ross, 1992; Simpson and Mayhew, 1991; Williams and Wells, 1993; Wilson, 1993). Studies have also shown that the average BAC among DWI offenders is typically in the range of 170 to 180 mg% (e.g., Donelson et al., 1985; Mercer, 1983; Perrine et al., 1989). Given that roadside surveys of nighttime drivers typically find less than two percent of drivers with BACs in excess of 150% (Foss et al., 1991; Interministerial Committee, 1988; Lund and Wolfe, 1991), drivers with BACs of this magnitude are clearly overrepresented among the fatally injured and arrested populations.

The risk associated with very high BACs is exacerbated by the fact that many of these individuals drive frequently after consuming large amounts of alcohol. Many will be arrested for impaired driving on more than one occasion. In fact, recent evidence indicates that the proportion of repeat offenders is increasing (Beirness et al., 1994; Wilson, 1993), reaching 60% in some jurisdictions. This finding suggests that measures for dealing with offenders have failed to prevent subsequent instances of impaired driving among a large proportion of offenders. And, whereas many offenders will be rearrested, still others will become involved in alcohol-related crashes. For example, Fell (1993) reports that approximately 12% of intoxicated drivers involved in a fatal crash have at least one prior DWI conviction on their records in the past three years. Other studies indicate that this proportion is considerably higher if driver records are examined over a longer period of time. Donelson et al. (1989) reported that 34% of drivers responsible for fatal crashes in British Columbia had been previously convicted of impaired driving. A study in Minnesota also reported the 35% of alcohol-related fatal crashes involved a driver with a previous DWI offence (Simon, 1992). Hence, not only are repeat offenders a burden on the legal system, such individuals appear to comprise a substantial proportion of drivers responsible for alcohol-related fatal crashes.

The recent focus on rehabilitation programs for offenders reflects the realization that many cases of driving with a very high BAC result from a dependence on alcohol that is not easily controlled by conscious acts of will power, even to avoid certain and severe punishment. For this reason, a growing number of jurisdictions throughout North America have implemented rehabilitation programs for DWI offenders as a means to address the underlying drinking problem that usually characterizes high BAC and multiple offenders. These efforts range from providing a short educational program to more intensive programs that take place over the course of a weekend. Other programs involve screening for alcohol dependence, followed by formal treatment. The number and range of rehabilitation programs for offenders continues to expand as more and more jurisdictions recognize the need to prevent repeat offences and possible alcohol-related crashes by persons who have been convicted of an impaired driving offence.

Since programs for DWI offenders in Canada have not been examined systematically, it is difficult to share information efficiently to determine what approaches are effective and what opportunities exist for enhancing current efforts. It is also difficult to identify what critical information gaps exist, which if filled, would assist in refining existing programs and policies. In this context, to support efforts to deal effectively with DWI offenders, Health Canada commissioned the Traffic Injury Research Foundation to conduct a study to detail the procedures and programs for dealing with first and multiple DWI offenders in Canada. This is the report on that project.

1.2 Purpose of the Report

The purposes of this report are:

• to document the procedures for dealing with DWI offenders in each province and territory in Canada from identification through licence reinstatement;
• to provide a comprehensive, descriptive inventory of educational, treatment and assessment programs for DWI offenders available in each province and territory;
• to identify significant intervention opportunities -- gaps in existing procedures and programs -- which, if filled, would enhance the efficacy of efforts targeted at the DWI offender;
• to identify programs that could be evaluated for purposes of serving as models for others to use;
• to identify key issues with respect to DWI offenders that should be explored in greater detail; and,
• to identify critical research needs that would enhance our understanding of the characteristics of the DWI offender and lead to more effective programs and policies.

Scope of the Report

Section 2.0 of this report outlines the methods used to compile the information on procedures and programs for dealing with DWI offenders in each province and territory in Canada.

Section 3.0 details the procedures for dealing with DWI offenders in each province and territory in Canada.

Section 4.0 provides an overview of rehabilitation programs and describes examples of such programs in Canada. The section concludes with a discussion of the elements in a model program or system for dealing with DWI offenders.

Section 5.0 presents an inventory of programs for DWI offenders in Canada.

Section 6.0 provides a discussion of significant information gaps as well as research and evaluation needs.

Information contained in this report was supplied by individuals in each province and territory knowledgeable in drinking-driving issues and/or actively engaged in DWI programs. Where we were uncertain about some aspect of the information provided, follow-ups were made with one or more persons. There may, however, be cases where we have unknowingly misinterpreted the information provided. We apologize for any errors or misrepresentations. It must also be acknowledged that programs and policies are constantly being revised and updated to better meet the needs of the offender and the community. Indeed, one of the goals of this project is to encourage the development and implementation of more efficient and effective means of dealing with DWI offenders. It is hoped that this report will serve as a catalyst for such change.