DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 309 321 CE 052 984

TITLE Youth Driving without Impairment. Report on the YouthImpaired Driving Public Hearings (Atlanta, Georgia;Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Fort Worth,Texas; Seattle, Washington). A CommunityChallenge.

INSTITUTION National Commission against Drunk Driving,Washington, DC.

SPONS AGENCY Nationa., Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT),Washington, D. C.

REPORT NO DOT-HS-807-347PUB DATE Dec 88NOTE 82p.

PUB TYPE Viewpoints (120)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Accident Prevention; *Adolescents; *Alcohol Abuse;

*Alcohol Education; Alcoholic Beverages; Alcoholism;*Drinking; Driver Education; Safety Education;*Traffic Accidents; Traffic Safety; *Young Adults

IDENTIFIERS *Youth Impaired Driving Model

ABSTRACTThe testimony heard by the National Commission

against Drunk Driving on how to prevent alcohol-related motor vehiclecrashes, which constitute the leading cause of death for youth ofdriving age, resulted in some of the recommendations in this report.The document consists of: an executive summary, a preface, anexplanation of the Youth Impaired Driving Model, an introduction, achapter on findings and recommendations, a chapter on generalrecommendations and conclusions, and three appendices. Aimed atmaking youthful impaired driving socially intolerable, the YouthImpaired Driving Model focuses on a systemwide approach with thefollowing components: (1) school responsibilities, (2)extracurricular activities, (3) community responsibilities, (4)work-based activities, (5) enforcement, (6) licensing, (7)adjudication, (8) supervision, and (9) legislation. The chapter onfindings and recommendations contains a section on each of the ninecomponents in the Youth Impaired Driving Model and makesrecommendations regarding each. Four general recommendations andconclusions are also given. The appendices contain a directory ofyouth programs; lists of advisory committee members, committeemembers who wrote the report, and panelists and presenters whoappeared at the five hearings; information from a 1988 survey ondrinking and driving among high school seniors; and statistics onyouth fatal crashes from 1982-1987. (CML)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

YOUTH DRIVING

WITHOUT IMPAIRMENTU S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office 10 Educational Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

O Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

A Community Challenge

School

Based

Extra

Curricular

Community

Based

Work

Based

Legis-

lation

Supervision

Enforce-ment

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

Adjudication

Licensing

National Commission Against Drunk Driving

2

Youth DrivingWithout Impairment

Report on the Youth Impaired DrivingPublic Hearings

Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Fort Worth, Seattle

"A Community Challenge"

Prepared by the National Commission Against Drunk Driving Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL COMMISSION AGAINST DRUNK DRIVINGBOARD OF DIRECTORS

JOHN A VOLPECHAIRMAN EMERITUS

V J ADDUCI, CHAIRMANLAWRENCE H WILLIFORD

VICE CHAIRMAN

DORIS AIKENNOEL C BUFEBEVERLY CAMPBELLDR MORRIS E CHAFETZJAMES B CREALTHOMAS J DONOHUEHON JIM EDGARFRANK W EMIGEDWARD 0 FRITTST C GILCHREST

JOHN P GIUGGIOKENNETH HINEJAMES S KEMPER JRROBERT KIRK

LESTER LAMM

MILTON HITLERROSEMARY B PARKERNORMA PHILLIPSWILLIAM N PLYMATJERALD S SACHSJAMES C SANDERSRICHARD SOIL/BERTWILLIAM T SMITH II

JOHN J GRANTPROGRAM DIRECTOR

SECRETARY/TREASURER

CHARLES F SCHILLGENERAL COUNSELADDUCI OMAN MASTRiANi

MEEKS S SCHILL

Dear Mr. President:

You will remember that in 1983 the Commission that you appointedto review the drunk driving problem recommended that a nationalcommission be established to assure the implementation of the 38other recommendations submitted to you. Accordingly, Mr. President,as chairman of that Commission, it is my special privilege to presentto you this Report on Youth Impaired Driving. It is an ley ofthe testimony given in the five public hearings sponsor_d by theNational Commission Against Drunk Driving in cooperation with theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department ofTransportation.

Hearings in Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Atlanta and Fort Worthsought to focus national attention on the serious problem of youngpeople drinking and driving and the need for a comprehensiveresponse. These hearings provided an exciting exchange between adultsand youth about what is or is not working, and what yet needs to beadopted. Youth leaders and youthful offenders offered compellingevidence of the scope of this problem. The testimony providedvaluable insights into young America's view of drunk driving,especially as it related to attitudes within family circles and amongtheir peers. The specific recommendations found at the end of eachsection in this report reflect the crying need to coordinate allelements of the community to respond effectively to youthful impaireddriving.

It is not enough to lament the thousands of young lives that arelost each year on American highways. We must end the senselessbehavior that makes alcohol-related crashes the American way to diefor youth of driving age. The acceptance and implementation of therecommendations in this Report can make a difference in a coordinatedand sustained national campaign that calls for youthful drivingwithout impairment. The Commission is indeed grateful to you, Mr.President, for your leadership and commitment to find solutions tothis issue throughout your Administration.

4

truly yours,

. Adduciairman

AcknowledgmentsThe National Commission Against Drunk Driving wishes to acknowledge those individ-

uals and organizations who provided oral and written testimony at the five hearings. Wecommend the panelists who gave so generously of their time and shared their ideas andconcerns with the testifiers and the audience about youthful impaired driving.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the Advisory Committee that helped in the design of thehearing format and content. These preparations were complemented by the exceptionalefforts of the staffs in the Regional Offices of the National Highway Traffic Safety Adm!:fis-tration in each of the five hearing sites. We also appreciate the cooperation of the respec-tive Governors' Highway Safety Representatives and local committees at each site whoassisted with the arrangements for the hearings.

While a general acknowledgment seeks to recognize everyone who assisted in some way,certain individuals should be singled out for the encouragement and support that they gaveto this project. Key NHTSA regional personnel are identified for each of the five hearingsites in the appendix. The Report Writing committee is also noted therein with theAdvisory Committee. The mere listing of names is a small measure of appreciation for thecontribution that these people made. Finally, mention must be made of the late Edward S.Sands who volunteered so much time and talent to the advance work of the hearings. Hisyears of professional experience was matched by his personal enthusiasm for this project.The NCADD trusts that this spirit is reflected in the following pages.

III

c-o

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary vii

Preface xi

Youth Impaired Driving Model xiii

Introduction 1

Findings and Recommendations 3I. School Responsibilities 5

II. Extracurricular Activities 15III. Community Responsibilitie. 21IV. Work-based Activities 27V. Enforcement 33

VI. Licensing 39VII. Adjudication 45

VIII. Supervision 53IX. Legislation 59

General Recommendations and Conclusion 65

Appendix I 69Directory of Youth Programs

Appendix II 77Advisory CommitteeReport Writing CommitteePanelists and Presenters:

ChicagoBostonSeattleAtlantaFort Worth

Appendix III 83Survey on Drinking and Driving Among High School SeniorsYouth Fatal Crash Statistics

V

6

Executive SummaryThe National Commission Against Drunk Driving, working with a grant from the Nation-

al Highway Traffic Safety Administration, conducted five public hearings in 1987-88 on theproblem of youth impaired driving. From the wealth of testimony gathered in Chicago,Boston, Seattle, Atlanta and Fort Worth, many recommendations were adopted for thisreport.

A review of the proceedings reveals one paramount conclusion: the time has not arrivedyet when we can rest content with what has been done to address the problem of youthimpaired driving. Despite the spread of activist groups, the proliferation of programs, andthe passage of much-needed legislation, young people continue to drink and drive withalarming frequency. Over the course of the past five years, it has become illegal for youthunder age 21 to purchase and possess alcohol in every state. Nevertheless, young peoplecontinue to be involved in alcohol-related crashes at ilisproportionately high rates. A youngperson under the legal drinking age remains nearly twice as likely to die in an alcohol-related crash as an adult over 21.

Youth impaired driving cannot be solved without addressing the problem of underagedrinking. Testifiers at the hearings summarized the situation:

Drinking is endemic among American youth.Alcoholic beverages remain easily accessible to youth under 21.

Peer pressure encourages young people to drink and leads many adolescents toconsider alcohol a necessary accompaniment to social events.Advertising normalizes alcohol consumptior and makes it more difficult to raiseconcerns about alcohol abuse.

Drinking decreases inhibitions in young people who all too frequently possess apropensity for taking risks and naively believe that they will not be harmed.

The combination of these factors leads to a tragically predictable result: alcohol-relatedmotor vehicle crashes constitute the leading cause of death for youth of driving age

The NCADD-sponsored hearings confirmed that youth impaired driving is a societalproblem which will not be resolved in the short term or by a single approach. Changing theattitude of youth toward impaired driving and, more fundamentally, toward underagedrinking requires a sustained coordinated effort. Youth must be presented with the singlemessage from all elements of the community that under-age drinking and impaired drivingare socially intolerable.

Testimony repeatedly emphasized the pivotal role parents play in preventing youthinpaired driving. According to a University of Washington survey, parents are the mostimportant influence on a youth's decision not to use alcohol or other drugs. Similarly, whena Michigan State University survey asked high school students what factors would reducethe amount of alcohol they consumed, 70%-90% responded that parental actions such assupervising parties, keeping a closer control over home alcohol supplies, and making agreater effort to discuss their weekend activities would reduce their drinking habits.

Unfort inately, all too many parents have abdicated their responsibilities. Testifiersdescribed encounters with parents who criticized police officers for arresting juvenile DWI

VII

7

offenders, parents who fought protracted legal battles to prevent the revocation of theirchild's driving license, and parents who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, steadfastlydenied the existence of their child's drinking problem. These actions, one testifier noted,not only undermine the efforts of those who work to reduce youth impaired driving but fuelthe young person's sense of being victimized by the system.

The reaction of these parents to the enforcement of drinking and driving laws empha-sizes the need for education to inform parents about the scope of the impaired drivingproblem. Findings by Michigan State University researchers confirmed this need: while60%-70% of parents are convinced that underage drinking occurs, only 20% believe thattheir own children are involved in such behavior. This statistic dramatically illustrates theunwillingness of parents to acknowledge the involvement of their children in underagedrinking.

The hearings made it clear that every systemwide approach must combine prevention,deterrence and treatment/intervention. Preventive education for youth must start at anearly age, before young people are first confronted with the decision to use alcohol or otherdrugs. With young people beginning, on a national average, to first use alcohol at 12.8years of age, education clearly must start in elementary school. It must be designed toprovide children with information on alcohol and drug use, but it must also teach them theskills they need to act on that information and resist pressure from friends and family touse alcohol and other drugs.

In providing youth with alcohol education and skills, considerable care should be given toselecting appropriately qualified teachers, for the teacher is the most important variable inthe success of the program. These teachers should be good role models, trusted by students,and want to teach the subject.

In addition to maximizing the value of formal classroom instruction, educators shouldtake full advantage of the possibilities of peer education. Testifiers cited numerous exam-ples of programs involving high school youth who volunteer to work with junior high orelementary school children on highway safety and alcohol and drug issues. Like peereducation, positive peer pressure has a tremendous potential for altering attitudes aboutdrinking and driving. By banding together to form safety clubs and support groups, youthcan encourage their peers to value a health lifestyle and socially-responsible behavior.

The single most controversial topic of the hearings was the safe rides programs. Support-ers of safe rides programs contend that intervention is needed in the less-than-perfect worldwhere young people drink illegally and subsequently drive. Advocates of more prevention-oriented approaches emphasized that efforts to counter youth impaired driving must ad-dress the underlying problem of underage drinking by emphasizing a no-use approach. Inits recommendations, the NCADD recognizes the value of both arguments, acknowledgingthe need to take positive steps to discourage underage drinking while recognizing theimportance of intervention measures that make our highways safer for everyone.

While preventive education is important, it alone is not sufficient to deter youths fromdrinking and driving. Enforcement is also necessary. Testifiers complained of a lack ofenforcement. Both youth and police agreed that young people are not subject to the samelevel of rigorous enforcement as the older adult population. To increase the effectiveness ofenforcement, testifiers suggested that police target youthful impaired driving by focusingtheir shift schedules and patrols on the hours when most impaired driving offenses byyouth occur. Police should also patrol parks, schools, and other neighborhood locationswhere youth tend to gather. When youth are arrested for drinking and driving violations,

A,they should be subject to the full penalty of the law. Releasing youth to their parents, likedowngrading their offenses or diverting them into pre-adjudication programs, conveys theimpression to the young offenders as well as to their parents that youthful impaireddriving is not a serious offense.

VIIIS

The evidence suggests that communities with the best record of reducing youthful drink-ing and driving have succeeded by formulating an integrated, systemwide approach. If thehearings revealed one thing, it was that many good programs and successful countermeas-ures exist. The key is for communities to put all of these elements in place, so that theefforts of students, parents, schools, courts, businesses and police support one another. Onlywhen all nine components that came under so much discussion during the youthful im-paired hearings are put in place can we look forward to significant reductions in theserious injuries and fatalities involving thousands of young Americans. Each communitymust confront this serious social issue if we are to ensure that this campaign to counteryouthful impaired driving is a truly national campaign. No one will admit that this is aneasy challengebut who would deny it is a challenge that every community must accept!

IX 9

PrefaceYear after year, young people are over-represented in alcohol-related crashes. Alcohol-

related fatalities remain the leading cause of death for youth of driving age. Responding tothe problem of youth impaired driving, the Presidential Commission on Drunk Drivingrecommended several countermeasures in 1983, including alcohol education in schools,provisional licenses for youth, and a minimum legal purchase and possession age of 21.While states and communities have begun to implement these and other measures, anintegrated, systemwide approach to the problem has been slow in developing in manyareas.

Aware of the need to encourage a systemwide approach, the National CommissionAgainst. Drunk Driving (NCADD) held a series of public hearings to examine the problem ofyouth impaired driving and to uncover, compile and share information about existingprograms that might prove useful to those concerned about the problem. With a grant fromthe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and support from AllstateInsurance and other corporate donors, the NCADD scheduled five public hearings inChicago, Boston, Seattle, Atlanta and Fort Worth.

An advisory committee was established to structure the format of the hearings andsuggest testifiers and panelists. Nine topics were selected for discussion: school responsibil-ity, extracurricular programs, community i-asponsibility, workplace programs, enforcement,licensing, adjudication, supervision and legislation. At each hearing, an effort was made tosolicit verbal and written testimony on all nine subjects. This report represents a distilla-tion of that testimony. Before publication, the report was submitted for review and com-ment to 25 professionals in the health and traffic safety field.

The public hearing format was chosen because it can draw attention to a problem,investigate the problem, and generate potential solutions through an exchange of ideas. Ateach hearing, testifiers spoke before a panel that included NCADD Directors and Trustees,NHTSA and state highway safety officials, and experts from the region in which thehearing was held. A wide variety of individuals testified at the hearings including schooland community officials, police, judges, prosecutors, treatment professionals, business lead-ers and state legislators. The input of youth was considered especially valuable, and forthat reason many young people were asked to testify: student leaders from middle schools,high schools and colleges; young recovering alcoholics; impaired driving offenders; andyouth who had injured themselves or killed others. To promote further dialogue, discussionwas opened to the public at each hearing, and members of the audience were invited to askquestions or exchange ideas with panelists and testifiers.

This report does not offer a complete solution to the problem of youth impaired driving.The youth impaired driving model around which the report is organized does not include aseparate component on the family, although this subject is discussed in the section oncommunity responsibility. As a record of the hearing testimony, the report places greatemphasis upon the responsibilities of parents but does not discuss dysfunctional families orfamilies in which one or both parents are alcoholics.

From the beginning, the National Commission believed that it was important for thereport to reflect the concerns of the testifiers. The coverage given to various topics in the

XI

report consequently depended upon how much or how little attention testifier' devoted tothe subject. Readers may find areas which they Ix lieve warrant greater consideration andsuccessful programs which are not mentioned. Given the process, these omissions areunavoidable.

The terminology of the report deserves a few words of explanation:

Throughout the report, we use the phrase "impaired driving" rather than "drunkdriving." The term "impaired" is preferred for two reasons. First, because we areconcerned, particularly in the case of youth, about the impact of low levels of alcoholconsumption on driving, not just drunkenness. Second, its use is intended to remindreaders that drugs other than alcohol affect driving skills and that drug use, espe-cially among young people, poses a serious highway safety problem.

Recognizing that alcohol is a drug, we have tried whenever possible to use the phrase"alcohol and other drugs." At times this wording proved awkward and was notemployed, though this should not diminish the importance of acknowledging thatalcohol is a drug.

Whenever the word "parents" is used, it is meant to include those who exerciseparental authority over children, such as legal guardians.

Intended to reflect the testimony, the report is not an evaluation by the NCADD ofexisting programs. Instead, the report offers an opportunity for self-evaluation and seeks toprovoke discussion and to be a point of departure for possible research and further effortsto combat youth impaired driving. The recommendations located at the end of each chapterare the sole responsibility of the NCADD and do not necessarily reflect the policies andprograms of NHTSA or the other organizations who cooperated in this project. In selectingthese recommendations from the abundance of proposals suggested by testifiers, theNCADD offers the foundation for a systemwide approach. It is the hope of the NCADD thatthis report and its recommendations, however obvious some of them first may apprar, willencourage and support the efforts of those who have taken on the challenge of combattingyouth impaired driving.

Finally, it should be noted that the report focuses on youth under age 21. In addressingthe issue of youth impaired driving, the NCADD does not wish to overlook problem driversin older age groups, for we certainly recognize that young adults ages 21-24 also exhibit analarmingly high rate of impaired driving. Nonetheless, special reasons do exist for target-ing those under age 21. During their teenage years, most young people begin both to drinkand drive. Inexperience in each of these activities combines with deadly effect. By encour-aging education on the effects of alcohol and by supporting measures to increase awarenessof the rlangers of drinking and driving, we have an opportunity to influence the lifelongdriving behavior of young people. Youth-targeted activities are an investment in the futurethat deserve our fullest attention.

XII I i

Youth Impaired Driving Model

xiii -, 2

Components of the Youth Impaired DrivingModel

The goal of making youthful impaired driving socially intolerable requires a sustained,cooperative effort from all elements of the community. Testimony at the public hearingsfocused on the following nine crucial components of a systemwide approach:

School Responsibilitiesthis category encompasses both curricular and non-curricularactivities including: formal classroom instruction for students from kindergarten to collegethat addresses alcohol/drug use and impaired driving; school intervention programs de-signed to address the needs of individual youth with substance abuse problems; and teachertraining.

Extracurricular Activitiesactivities involving students which often occur in a schoolsetting but which are outside the curriculum. Examples include student safety groups,summer camps, statewide conferences and alcohol-free activities.

Community Responsibilitiesgrass roots efforts where young people and adults worktogether to promote community awareness and activities. This area focuses on the role ofparents and the actions that they can take both privately in the home and publicly incitizen groups. It encompasses the activities of activist groups, churches, civic groups andother community organizations.

Work-Based Activitiesactivities undertaken in the workplace or sponsored by the pri-vate sector. These activities include: informational activities for young employees; companypolicies prohibiting the use of alcohol and other drugs during work hours; substance abuseassistance for employees; support for community programs directed at young people; andefforts by retail vendors to stop the sale of alcohol to underage youth.

Enforcementpolice or Alcohol Beverage Contrr 1 agency programs designed to enforceminimum drinking age and impaired driving laws.

Licensingprimarily state programs, licensing encompasses: 1) provisional licensing foryouth; 2) licensing sanctions for youth impaired driving; 3) measures to combat the manu-facture and use of fraudulent forms of identification and; 4) other programs dealing withthe licensuie of young drivers.

Adjudicationactivities in which judges or prosecutors play a central role. These includestrategies I'm processing, sanctioning and rehabilitating youthful offenders; programs thatprovide information or instruction to judges or prosecutors on the problem of youth im-paired driving; and activities outside the court in which the judge or prosecutor assumes aleadership role to effect change in the community.

Supervisionprograms established for youthful offenders after they have been adjudicat-ed. These include screening for drug and alcohol problems, intake, probation, educationprograms, treatment alternRtives and case management.

Legislationlaws and policies directed at reducing impaired driving and the use ofalcohol and other drugs by youth.

XV i 3

IntroductionIn the past five years progress has been made

in reducing the number of alcohol-related motorvehicle deaths involving young drivers. Between1982 and 1987, the alcohol-related fatalities ofyouth under 21 declined by 21.9%. While thisfigure is tempered by the fact that the youthpopulation declined by 8.4% during that time, itnonetheless represents a significant achieve-ment.

The impressive reduction in alcohol-relatedyouth fatalities typifies a general decline since1982 in alcohol involvement in youth crashes.This reduction is all the more impressive giventhe steady increase in non-alcohol related youthfatalities over that same period. As a variety ofstatistics indicate, alcohol is a factor in fewerand fey, er crashes involving young 7eople. Infact, the largest decrease among all age groupsin alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes has oc-curred within the 15-20 year old age group.

RI18.Youth Fatalities Ages 15 to 20

19 young people compared to 11 adultsover 21 died in alcohol-related crashes per100,000 of their respective populations.

25 young drivers compared to 11 adultdrivers over 21 were involved it alcohol-related crashes per 100,000 licensed driv-ers in each population.

Youths under 21 comprise only 8% of thetotal driving population but accounted for17% of the drivers involved in alcohol-related fatal crashes.

25% of all passengers killed in motor ve-hicle crashes were youth aged 15 to 20.

Drinking and driving continues to be thenumber one killer of teenagers. More than 40%of all deaths for people age 15-20 result frommotor vehicle crashes; and approximately halfof these fatalities involve alcohol. One in fiveAmerican youths who dies between the ages of15 and 20 will die in an alcohol-related crash.As it has often been remarked, the alcohol-relat-ed crash is the American way to die for teen-agers of driving age.

Fatalities(Thousands)

Motor Vehicle Deaths, NV to MP

Alcohol Related

4718

4747

41114 3811

393383

47

3167 Non Alcohol

4204

4011

Related

2

1

1

1

1

1

51

2- 312s

2

181112 1983 111114 1965 1981 1967

Despite encouraging indications that alcoholinvolvement is declining, young people continueto be involved in alcohol-related crashes in dis-proportionately high numbers. Last year youthunder the age of 21 remained significantly over-represented when compared to the over 21-popu-lation:

Figura le

Leading Causes of Accidental Death000 -{ by Age

Deaths

800

100 H

400

200 -1

000 j

800 1

GOO -

400 -

200 -'W

0

200

0 10

Age (Years)...NM. len III7 lose.,

The problem, t f youth impaired driving is inti-mately associated with the problem of illegal

1

4

underage drinking. Self-reported surveys revealthat nine out of ten high school seniors haveused alcohol by the time they graduate and thata significant number drink heavily. As testifiersrepeatedly declared, regular alcohol use is seenas the norm by many American youth.

Sharing unpublished statistics from the 1987

National High School Senior Survey, PatrickO'Malley of the University of Michigan's Insti-tute for Social Research offered in his testimonya disturbing view of the problem of youth im-paired driving. According to the 1987 survey of17,000 high school seniors nationwide, 27% ofthe respondents reported that they had driven acar after drinking in the two weeks prior to thesurvey. Even more alarming, 15% reported driv-ing after having five or more drinks in a row.Still more students are placing themselves atrisk by riding as passengers in a car with adriver who has been drinking. More than one-third reported riding with a drinking driver inthe prior two weeks. And the drivers withwhom they risked riding more often than notwere drinking heavily, with 22% of the seniorsstating that they had been a passenger in a carin the prior two weeks with a driver who hadconsumed five or more drinks.

The danger that young people court whenthey drink and drive is exacerbated by threefactors. First, young people are inexperienceddrivers. Not only are a greater percentage ofyouth involved in alcohol-related crashes, but agreater percentage are involved in car crashesin general. Second, youth exhibit a propensityto risk-taking and 1 common feeling of invinci-bility that often contributes to reckless driving.Third, youth have a tendency not to use safetybelts. According to the University of Michigansurvey, only one third of the seniors said thatthey always wear a safety belt when they aredriving, and even fewer always wear them whenthey are passengers in the front seat of a car.Given this pattern of behavior, the dispropor-

2

tionate number of alcohol-related crashes thatclaim the lives of young people becomes sadlypredictable.

Our best hope of countering the pervasivenessof youth impaired driving lies in formulating anintegrated systemwide approach that willpresent young people with a consistent messagethat underage drinking and impaired drivingare intolerable. Testifiers clearly emphasizedthat this approach must involve the entire com-munity and cited examples of the type of coordi-nation that is necessary: parents mutt supportstudent extracurricular activities and partici-pate in community programs; judges mustexpand their role beyond the courts and becomecommunity catalysts for change; college admin-istrators and retail liquor establishments mustwork together to stop alcohol purchases by un-derage college students; and business leadersmust support the efforts of citizen action groupsin their communities.

Within the framework of a systemwide ap-proach, testifiers placed the single greatest em-phasis upon the role and responsibility of par-ents. Both youth and adult testifiers stressedthis point. Parents need to concern themselveswith the well-being of their children and pro-vide emotional support, moral guidance and dis-ciplinary action. Youth are much less likely toget involved in illegal activities if they feel asense of attachment to their family and otherpro-social institutions. As a study submitted bya Vermont testifier concluded, youth impaireddriving often is only one element in a largerpattern of antisocial beha' 'or. Since parentsplay a pivotal role in shaping the behavior oftheir children, support for an integrated system-wide program must begin in the family withfforts by parents to provide their children with

the information and direction that encouragessocially-responsible behavior in a substance-abusing society.

1)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. School ResponsibilitiesToday, it is generally recognized that an effec-

tive response to the problem of youth impaireddriving must extend beyond traditional law en-forcement measures. Only by changing the atti-tudes and perceptions of young people towardalcohol use and abuse can communities achievemore than token success. Education constitutesan indispensable element of this response.Through education, youth may come to see thehealth risks of impaired driving and may beprovided with the refusal skills necessary toresist pressures to drink and drive.

Every community possesses a variety offorums for educatir 1 its youth. Parents, employ-ers and community organizations can all playan important role in informing youth about al-cohol use and establishing clear expectations ofsocially-responsible behavior. Within this educa-tional campaign, schools occupy a special place.By graduation time, a student will have spent10,000 hours in the classroom. When consider-ing the additional hours spent on extracurric-ular activities, it becomes clear that schools con-stitute a major site of personal and social devel-opment. Given the loss of young lives thatoccurs each year, communities cannot afford toneglect the school's potential for shaping theattitudes of young people toward their own well-being.

The testimony on school-based countermeas-ures focused on five key questions:

1) Why is education, and particularly earlyeducation, so important?

2) How should schools respond to the prob-lem of underage drinking and impaireddriving?

3) Who should provide classroom instruc-tion?

4) What is the state's role in establishingschool programs?

5) What special problems do colleges con-front and what are their responsibilities?

The Importance of EducationWhile education remains an important ele-

ment in the general battle against impaireddriving, it assumes an even greater role in thecampaign to stop youth from drinking and driv-ing. Youth, as testifiers remarked, often possess

5

./

.we ....-._

Il IIIa feeling of invulnerability which leads them todismiss the risks of dangerous behavior. Educa-tion offers a means of countering this predispo-sition. By promoting the value of a healthy life-style and providing information on the physio-logical effects of alcohol, educators may dimin-ish the risk-taking proclivity of young people.

Education plays a second important functionin countering the mixed messages young peoplereceive about the seriousness of impaired driv-ing. Throughout the hearings, testifiers relatedaccounts of parents who tolerated the earlydrinking habits of their children, school officialswho denied the existence of student alcoholabuse, police officers who merely confiscated thealcoholic beverages of underage youth, andjudges who routinely failed to impose sanctionson juvenile offenders. Each of these practices,witnesses testified, tends to undermine efforts toimpress upon youth the seriousness of DWI of-fenses.

The gravest concern over the contradictorymessages reaching youths, however, was re-served for alcohol advertisements. Numerousparticipants criticized the counterproductiveimpact of alcohol beverage commercials, ex-pressing dismay at both their content and theirquantity. Articulating the concern of many tes-tifiers, William McCord of the South CarolinaCommission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, statedthat alcohol advertising socializes adolescents toalcohol use and contributes to a general envi-ronment that promotes overly casual attitudestoward alcohol consumption. Advertising, he ex-plained, may encourage potentially risky drink-ing and driving practices among youth and un-doubtedly makes it more difficult to raise publichealth concerns. According to McCord, even the"moderation" message of the alcoholic beverageindustry theme "know your limits" starts fromand reinforces the perception that almost every-body drinks and that some drinking is alwaysacceptable. For youth under age 21, this themeis particularly inappropriate.

The sheer number of alcohol advertisementsexacerbates the educator's problem of counter-acting their impact. According to Rita S. Weissof the American Automobile Association, be-tween the formative ages of 2 and 18, the aver-age child in the U.S. will view approximately

i 7

100,000 television commercials for beer alone.While extensive exposure to television commer-cials may not cause the adoption of negativebehavior, it may hinder the adoption of positivepreventative measures. People who frequentlywatch television are more likely to accept alco-hol involvement as a normal part of a widerange of activities, underestimate the socialproblems resulting from alcohol abuse, and viewprevention as an individual concern. Given thisclimate of socialization, the need for formalschool programs to inform youth of the harmfuleffects of underage drinking and impaired driv-ing becomes all the more imperative.

Early EducationIf participants at the hearings were unani-

mous in their advocacy of educational efforts,they were equally adamant that the educationof youth mu3t begin at an early age. Education,they insisted, must start early because youthbegin using alcohol and other drugs at a youngage. As Clay Roberts, a Seattle health educationconsultant, pointed out, the national averageage of first use of alcohol is 12.8 years. Withsignificant alcohol use occurring among pre-teens, pre tentative education must be intro-duced in elementary schools. To be successful, itmust provide children with the information,skills and attitudes they need before they arefirst confronted with the decision to use alcohol.As most educators recognize, it is far easier topromote the development of good behavior pat-terns than to attempt to change already estab-lished habits.

As a leading sponsor of impaired driver edu-cation, the American Automobile Associationoffers an illuminating example of how an under-standing of the importance of early educationaland preventative measures evolved. Having ini-tiated an alcohol awareness program for highschool students in 1973, AAA soon realized thatfor some young drinkers this program occurredtoo late in their education. Studies revealed thatingrained drinking patterns leading to impaireddriving formed at a much earlier age. A signifi-cant increase in problem drinking seemed tooccur for boys between seventh and eighthgrades, and for girls between eighth and ninthgrades. In 1978 AAA subsequently establishedAL-CO-HOL, a program for junior high schoolstudents. While conducting field-testing for thisjunior high school program, however, investiga-tors found convincing evidence that the earlieralcohol and traffic education began, the moreeffective it was likely to be in later years in

6

combatting both impaired driving and alcoholabuse. Motivated by research suggesting thatchildren develop a heightened concept of alcoholusage between the ages of six and ten, AAAexpanded its alcohol and traffic safety effortsand introduced its "Starting Early" program toencompass elementary school children.

Expert testimony on the need for early educa-tion received convincing corroboration from thefirsthand experience of the youth participants.Seattle students Megan Gleason and JohnStrickler noted the prevalence of alcohol con-sumption among their eighth-grade peers, whileFort Worth senior Cynthia Burbank spoke formany youths when she declared, "by the timeyou get to high school, your decisions are made.Are you going to do drugs? Are you going toexperiment with alcohol? The decisions aremade already. That's why right now, today, weneed to work with the elementary schools andthe children of that age."

The School's ResponseOnce schools have identified a need br pre-

ventative education programs, the question ofwhat to teach arises. Discussion of existing ap-proaches revealed that schools commonlyengage in three principal activities: providingeducation on the health risks of alcohol andother drugs; teaching refusal skills; and plan-ning intervention for students with substanceabuse problems.

The first responsibility schools have is to pro-vide education to students on the effect of alco-hol and other drugs. With notable frequency,youths in particular emphasized the importanceof this activity, stating that effective approachesto reaching young people begin with the presen-tation of factual information rather than overtattempts to sermonize. "Don't preach to us, justgive us the facts" emerged as a consistent re-frain.

Education is important because all too oftenyouth are not aware of the effects that a smallamount of alcohol can have on the brain. Relat-ing the story of her own tragic auto crash, 26year-old Alison Gentry emphasized the need toprovide young people with information on theeffects of alcohol, so that everyone will realizeimpairment occurs at low levels of consumption."I never thought that I could hurt anyone bymy ignorance," said Gentry, who killed herfiance while driving three months before theirwedding. "I thought a drunk driver was some-one who could not walk or was swerving allover the road. I was not slurring my words. I'd

18

had four drinks in a three-hour period of time. Iwasn't stumbling, or slurring my words, or driv-ing all over the road. But I was impaired."

When teachers provide instruction on thephysiological effects of alcohol, they accomplishtwo goals. First, they impart valuable informa-tion to their students. Second, and more subtly,they portray impaired driving as a health con-cern rather than as a law enforcement problem.This linkage between health and alcohol is veryimportant, according to testifiers. As Judge Bollof Ironton, Ohio noted, efforts to eliminate im-paired driving depend upon youth recognizingthat the costs of drinking and driving outweighthe benefits. Traditionally, the perceived bene-fits have not been hard to discern, for alcoholhas come to be seen as a symbol of adulthood, asign of rebellion against parental authority, asource of peer esteem. So long as drinking anddriving is viewed as a law enforcement problem,the major cost that youth perceive is the risk ofbeing caught. Portraying underage drinking andimpaired driving as a health concern, however,brings to light a new dimension of the costs andmay lead youth to understand that drinkingand driving itself, and not just the consequencesof being caught, jeopardize their well-being. Re-peatedly, testifiers commended this approach.Prevention efforts, they agreed, should take apositive approach and focus on wellness and thebenefits of a healthy lifestyle.

In addition to informing young people of theeffects of alcohol and the benefits of healthybehavior, educators need to teach youth the re-fusal skills that will enable them to act on theirown good judgment. As Clay Roberts noted, afallacy exists concerning the role of education.The fallacy is that if we give our kids goodinformation, they will make healthy choices. In-formation, however, is only the answer as longas ignorance is the problem; and the problem ofyouthful impaired driving, according to Roberts,does not arise from a lack of information. Thereal variable determining whether a youth willdrink and drive is social skills: Does the youngperson have the ability to refuse to drink in thepresence of friends when confronted with thechoice? Preventative education, therefore, mustcombine two elements. It must provide youngpeople with information about the effects of al-cohol; and, at the same time, it must teachyoung people the social skills that are necessaryfor them to act wisely on that information andresist the pressure to drink and drive.

Adolescents drink for a variety of reasons.They drink to replace social skills acquisition.They drink because they can't communicate, be-

7

cause they lack self-confidence, because they arepainfully self-conscious and fear to deviate fromthe norm. To overcome these problems, Robertsenumerated three social skills that school r ro-grams should teach. First, schools need to teachchildren to be assertive, to stand up for whatthey believe, to say no to the pressures of peers.Second, they need to teach children self-control.Before youths can resist the advances of peers,they must be able to control their own behavior.Finally, schools need to teach children how tomake new friends. Peer groups exert a domi-nant influence over substance use, and oftensubstance use will not end until an individualbreaks with a group that uses, and thus legiti-mates the use of, alcohol and drugs. Unless indi-viduals possess the social skills to make newfriends, they may hesitate to leave the securityof their clique, even if, in the rare case, they dorecognize its deleterious effect upon them.

Providing information on alcohol and teach-ing refusal skills are useful components of aschool program that seeks to prevent the onsetof alcohol/drug use. Their potential for success-fully modifying youth behavior, however, is lim-ited to the body of students capable of rationallyunderstanding the consequences of substanceuse. Unfortunately, a significant number of ado-lescents are substance abusers whose chemicaldependency renders them impervious to healthand safety messages. These individuals oftensuffer from permanent neurochemical changeand may have developed defense mechanisms torationalize their behavior and deny the exist-ence of an alcohol problem. For these youths, aprevention approach combining information andrefusal skill. techniques is inadequate. Onlyintervention and counseling offers a possibilityof altering their behavior. Intervention andcounseling constitute the third essential compo-nent of a school program.

Testifiers cited two important reasons whyschools need to develop intervention techniques.The first reason has to do with the sheernumber of students estimated in need of inter-vention programs. A 1987 surrey of one schooldistrict in the state of Washington estimatedthat 40% of the high school students were sub-stance abusers. Prevention messages offer littlehope of affecting these students. Second, thevery existence of such a large body of substanceabusers and chemical dependents limits the ef-fectiveness of education on the remaining 60%of the adolescent population. As David Moore,the Director of Olympic Counseling Services inWashington, testified:

"The disordered thought process of thesubstance-impaired student competes withour prevention messages for the belief sys-tems enacted by the non-impaired student. Itwould be a fallacy to believe that the non-impaired will not sometimes succumb to theinfluence of their impaired peersparticu-larly in the crucial social milieu of the teen-age party scene. The concept of "too drunk todrive" may be clear in a Friday afternoonhealth education class. But at a Fridayevening kegger where 60% of the seniors aredrinking alcohol, the distinction becomesquite hazy. The 40% of our adolescent; whothink irrationally about substance use havea peer influence which extends well beyondtheir own group.

A concerted effort must be made to ad-dress the 40% of our adolescents who aresubstance-impaired. It is far easier, and cer-tainly more emotionally satisfying, to dis-cuss prevention topics with the 60% of ourteenagers who respond rationally to sucheducational messages. The more difficulttask, and certainly [one] critical to highwaysafety, is to intervene on the substance im-paired population who, through their delu-sion and denial, tune out our safety mes-sages."

Intervention measures constitute the thirdcomponent of a triadic approach to school-basedprograms. While education curricula and eveninstruction in refusal skills frequently garnergreater attention, intervention programs thatprovide counseling, referral services and after-care are essential. In the past, substance abusetreatment largely depended on an adolescentbeing caught drinking and driving by the police.According to testimony, however, apprehensionoccurs notoriously seld^ .1 and clearly not oftenenough to alleviate the high rate of adolescentuse. Consequently, many schools are now as-suming responsibility for intervention pro-grams.

Classroom InstructorsWhile testifiers devoted much time to delin-

eating the three essential components of aschool based programinformation, refusalskills and interventionthey also gave consider-able attention to the question of who shouldteach these programs. According to Clay Rob-erts of Roberts, Fitzmahan and Associates, thecreators of "Here's Looking at You, 2000", themost important variable in a school preventis n

8

program may be the teacher who teaches it.Effective instructors, Roberts noted, display fivecharacteristics: 1) they are good role models; 2)they feel comfortable employing a variety ofteaching strategies; 3) they inspire the trust ofstudents so that students feel able to turn tothem in times of trouble; 4) they are capable ofmaking the subject come alive with humor andanecdotes; and 5) they want to teach the subject.

Throughout the hearings, testifiers empha-sized the importance of teacher training. Alco-hol and drug abuse education is very differentfrom traditional academic subjects, for it is notprimarily an intellectual subject somewhat re-moved from everyday life. On the contrary, forboth staff and students, it can be a sensitive,confusing, often controversial and, all too fre-quently, painful area of their daily lives. In thissetting, proper teacher training becomes essen-tial. Therefore, testifiers recommended that allteachers receive in-service training to learn howto recognize the signs of alcohol use and what todo in the case of students who need interven-tion. Wee extensive training, ideally offered byprofessionals in the treatment community,should be provided to those who teach specificcc arses on alcohol and other drugs. Effectiveinstructors need a knowledge base in the emerg-ing health care field of substance abuse educa-tion. Teacher training is enhanced when stateeducational agencies and teacher certificationprograms design and encourage formal drug-al-cohol education.

If the testifiers demonstrated a strong com-mitment to proper teacher training, they re-vealed an unshakeable faith in the efficacy ofpeer education. The concept of students helpingstudents received unanimous approval. Educa-tors, law enforcement officials and the youththemselves all testified that young people aremore likely to respond positively to instructionfrom peers than from adults. According to ClayRoberts, youth tend to pattern themselves afterthose who are three years older. Therefore,youth volunteers should work with studentswho are three years younger for best effect.

A. the hearings, participants described aplethora of innovative programs involving peereducation. Programs utilizing rehabilitated sub-stance abusers received particularly strong sup-port. Recovering teen alcoholics such as BrianCooper who testified in Seattle and John Rossiwho spoke in Boston maintained that recoveringabusers like themselves, who can speak withpersonal knowledge of the dangers of alcoholuse, have a special ability to reach young

4 U

people. Similarly in Ft. Worth, 16 year-old sub-stance abuser Edward Muldowney testified thatwhile high school students may not respond tocautionary messages from their straight peers,they may listen to a peer who can speak fromexperience of the effect of drug and alcohol use.

Classroom instructors in drinking and drivingneed not be limited to teachers and peers.Anyone capable of earning the respect of stu-dents constitutes a potentially valuable re-source. Alcohol-related crash victim RichardGallaspie of the Georgia Arrive Alive program,testified that his high school football coach wasthe one person who might have been able toreach him before alcohol abuse nearly claimechis life. A Vermont survey on adolescent alcoholconsumption offers even more compelling evi-dence for enlisting the aid of coaches, for itrevealed that males engaged in sports activitiesexhibited higher-than-average rates of alcoholuse.

Who else can be used to teach students? Com-munities possess an abundance of individualswhose backgrounds enable them to bring aunique perspective to clbqsroom discussions ondrinking and driving. To complement tradition-al classroom teachers, schools are bringing in anever broader spectrum of professionals to pro-vide instruction. In Illinois, for instance, thestate police have adopted a program entitledDARE - Drug Abuse Resistance Education -from the Los Angeles Police Department andimplemented it in 123 school districts. The pro-gram begins with a selective screening processand intensive educational program for statepolice volunteers and involves weekly visits byofficers to fifth and sixth grade classrooms tobuild rapport between the officers and children.In addition to DARE, the Illinois State Policehave also participated in STAR, a classroom in-struction program with a curriculum for gradesK-12 that covers such subjects as substanceabuse, decision making, choosing friends, saying"no" and self-esteem.

Other notable school programs seek to utilizesuch assets as the expertise of health care pro-fessionals and the popularity of professionalathletes. Emergency Nurses C.A.R.E., for exam-ple, operates in 19 states and brings emergencyroom nurses into classrooms to present slideshows of hospital patients being treated for alco-hol-related crashes. Professional athletes havealso figured prominently in school programs. Afour-state cooperative project known as the"Road to Winning" trained professional and col-legiate athletes to give presentations at schoolsin Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Alaska;

9

while in Massachusetts, a statewide programentitled the "Celtics Challenge" capitalized onthe popularity of the Boston Celtics to promoteeducational activities.

The State's RoleWhile primary responsibility for education

programs rests with local communities, stateagencies can play key roles in initiating andcoordinating school-based programs. Both the"Road to Winning" and the "Celtic Challenge,"serve as examples of programs that involved theparticipation of state governors. In addition topromoting programs, an active governor can usepolitical pressure to overcome the reluctance ofa community to acknowledge that a problem ofalcohol usage exists in its schools. And in dis-tricts where the education authorities lackeither the funds or motivation to establish alco-hol programs, state health or criminal agenciescan take the lead in implementing school activi-ties.

One of the most important state activitiesthat testifiers mentioned concerned the estab-lishment of educational requirements. In 1983the state legislature in Vermont, for example,mandated that alcohol and drug education pro-grams for grades K-12 be fully implemented inall school districts. State funding was appropri-ated to help school districts meet this mandate.A state program planning group was establishedto formulate a series of learning objectives foreach grade and to evaluate a variety of curricu-la available for implementation. Each yearschool districts are required to file a report withthe Com.nissioner of Education that evaluatesthe effectiveness of the district's alcohol anddrug abuse program.

With an increased number of school pro-grams, a state level task force or state spon-sored conference can perform a valuable coor-dinative function. In Rhode Island, the Gover-nor's Committee on Youth, Alcohol and Sub-stance Abuse established a statewide system ofhigh school substance abuse coordinators andformulated a curriculum with mandated guide-lines. Similarly, in Massachusetts eight Preven-tion Centers were established under the auspic-es of the Department of Public Health to deliverteacher training, provide a speaker's bureau,and act as a repository for information on drugand alcohol prevention programs.

In addition to coordinating activities and fa-cilitating the flow of information, state agenciescan provide support for neglected areas of theschool curriculum. In Texas, for example, high

21

schools offer driver education courses as elec-tives but devote little in-service instruction forteachers on the subject. Consequently, the TexasEducation Agency developed a curriculum uniton alcohol and drugs for driver education class-es, prepared a teachers' manual on the unit,and held instructor classes for driver educationteachers.

College ResponsibilitiesThroughout the hearings, participants devot-

ed the great majority of their attention to ele-mentary and secondary programs. Relativelyfew speakers addressed the subject of education-al programming for college students. Whilesome elements of the school programs imple-mented in grades K-12 may be applicable tocollege programs, underage drinking and driv-ing among college students occurs within a dif-ferent set of circumstances and, consequently,requires a somewhat different response.

According to David Winer, Dean of Studentsat Trinity College, university administratorsconfront a unique situation. Most college stu-dents are at least 18 years old and are consid-ered adults in every respect with the exceptionof purchase and possession of alcohol. Expectedto act as adults, students generally are concededthe right to regulate their lives without undueinterference from university officials. The exer-cise of this right, in fact, is seen as an impor-tant element of university education.

Wishing to respect the rights of young adultstudents, university officials nonetheless havebegun to recognize the need to respond to theproblem of underage drinking and impaireddriving. Despite increases in the purchase andpossession age to 21, alcohol continues toremain the primary substance abuse concern ofcollege faculty and administrators, Dean Winerstated. Raising the purchase and possession age,in fact, has worsened the problem on collegecampuses, according to Winer, for it has drivendrinking underground and increased the prob-lem of false fowls of identification.

The task of ending underage college drinkingis made more difficult by the fact that a largepercentage of students have been drinking forseveral years by the time they arrive at college.Acquired drinking habits prove more difficult tochange at this point. Further, even studentswho previously did not drink may be tempted todrink, and drink without restraint, as they ex-perience the first blush of freedom from paren-tal authority.

Mindfu' of their responsibility, some highereducation institutions have begun to address the

10

problem of illegal campus drinking. GloriaBusch-Johnson, Dean of Student Services atAiken Technical College, described the autosafety program entitled "Project Think" thatthe South Carolina Technical College systemhas devised. Implemented at all 16 technicalcolleges in the state, the program is designed tiincrease student awareness of the problem ofimpaired driving and discourage the use of alco-hol and other drugs when driving. A paid staffcoordinates the state-wide effort by providingtechnical assistance to each college, operatingan audiovisual aids loan program, assisting inthe planning of campus activities, and acquiringand distributing educational materials. Campusactivities include informational lectures, simu-lated automobile crashes, and live impaireddriving demonstrations where alcohol-free barsare provided. To inform students over 21 oftheir responsibilities when hosting a partywhere alcohol is served, participants at campusactivities are given literature which describesthe host's responsibilities and the danger ofdrinking and driving.

Other testifiers described further measures.Vince Burgess of the Virginia Department ofMotor Vehicles noted that an alliance of organi-zations in his state holds an annual conferenceknown as "Alternatives" for college administra-tors to discuss the problem of how to handleunderage drinking and driving. David Winer ofTrinity College stated that his institution hadestablished a policy prohibiting the consumptionof alcohol by large groups on weekdays.

In concluding his discussion of the optionsavailable to administrators, Dean Winer re-marked that colleges must be careful that poli-cies aimed at curbing underage drinking oncampus do not exacerbate the problem of im-paired driving. Without efforts to inform stu-dents of the dangers of drinking and driving,limitations on campus drinking merely maycause students to relocate their drinking off -campus, thus increasing the likelihood that theywill drink and drive.

Like their junior high and high school coun-terparts, college officials must adopt a compre-hensive approach to the problem. They must actto inform students about the effects of drinkingand driving. They must work with other mem-bers of the community, particularly law enforce-ment agents and bar owners in the vicinity ofthe campus, to ensure that their underage stu-dents do not relocate their drinking off-campus.And they must communicate the message,through their policies and through the activities

22

they sponsor, that impaired driving is intoler- empted from the purchase and possession lawsable and that college students will not be ex- that seek to eradicate it.

11

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONSSchool Responsibilities

States should require alcohol/drug education programs to be fully implemented inall school districts.Education should begin at an early age. Curriculum standards should be set foreach grade, K-12. Alcohol/other drug curricula should be identified which meetthese standards.

States should require each school to report on its program and the program'seffectiveness and offer an assessment of problems to the State Commissioner ofEducation every year. These local level assessments should in turn be evaluated bythe state, and findings communicated back to the school districts.Goals for both K-12 and college educational programs should include:1) preventing the illegal use of alcohol and other drugs;2) providing the information and life skills necessary for underage youths to resist

peer and advertising pressure to use alcohol and other drugs and to driveimpaired. Social skills taught should include modules on assertiveness, self-control, how to say 'no,' how to make friends and how to counter alcoholadvertising.

$ Periodic statewide evaluations on student knowledge and attitudes concerningalcohol and other drugs should be conducted as an effectiveness and assessmentmeasure.

* All classroom teachers should receive minimal training regarding alcohol/otherdrug issues. This training should include:

hov. to recognize the signs of alcohol and other drug use.appropriate intervention and referral techniqueshow to incorporate drug and alcohol issues into their daily lessons.

$ Those designated to teach alcohol and other drug curricula should:1) be good role models; 2) be trusted by students; 3) be adept at using a variety of

teaching strategies; and 4) want to teach the subject.Teachers of alcohol and other drug curricula should receive special in-servicetraining.

* Communities possess an abundance of human resources that schools should tap forclassroom instruction.

Peer education should be used. Trained, volunteer students should work withstudents who are three years younger for best effect.Specially trained uniformed police officers should be enlisted to speak at alcoholand other drug classes.Judges or court referees should be used in driver education classes to informstudents of lays awl sanctions.

* Universities should take steps to ensure that drinking and driving laws are obeyedand that counseling is available for students with substance abuse problems.

13

24

IL Extracurricular ActivitiesThousands of young people nation-wide are

participating in the fight to stop alcohol anddrug use and to prevent impaired driving.Through the pioneering efforts of StudentsAgainst Driving Drunk (SADD), youth are find-ing it acceptable to speak out against drinkingand driving. National organizations such asSADD and Just Say No are not alone in orga-nizilig networks of students to become active inprevention and intervention. State-wide effortsare numerous and include groups like OSSOM(Oregon), SAFTYE (Washington), Friday NightLive Clubs (California), SWAT (Texas), ArriveAlive (Georgia), STOPP (New Hampshire), andOklahoma Challenge (Oklahoma) to name but afew.

The testimony on extracurricular activitieslargely consisted of descriptions of the eventsand programs sponsored by student groups. Inrecounting these activities testifiers dwelt onthree prominent topics: safe rides programs,peer pressure and community support. The firsttopicsafe rides programs provoked extendeddebate. Critics contend that safe rides programssend a mixed message to youth by implicitlycondoning underage drinking, while advocatesmaintained that it is only realistic to attend tothe immediate safety concerns of impaired driv-ing before addressing the more intractable prob-lem of adolescent drinking.

The second topicpeer pressuregeneratedlittle controversy. Testifiers repeatedly affirmedthat peer pressure constitutes the greatest im-pediment to the success of extracurricular ac-tivities. It inhibits both the participation ofyouths in programs and their receptiveness tothe message of those programs. If peer pressureconstitutes the problem, however, it also holdsthe promise of a solution. Programs that utilizepositive peer pressure to dissuade youths fromdrinking and driving were praised consistentlyfor their ability to change the attitudes and be-havior of young people.

The third topic concerned the importance ofcommunity support. Extracurricular activitiesbegin with a concern by youths about the harm-ful behavior of their peers. To be effective, how-ever, these programs require more than concernand more, even, than the dedicated effort ofparticipants. They require the active support ofthe entire community. With remarkable consist-

15

ency, youth emphasized that the.r efforts re-quire reinforcement from parents, teachers, em-ployers, judges and police. For positive peerpressure to work, extracurricular activitiesmust be supported by a consistent message fromall elements of the community that underagedrinking and impaired driving are intolerable.

A variety of means exist for youth to encour-age their peers to refrain from drinking anddriving. These means extend well beyond thetraditional range of informational activitiesused to warn students about the dangers of im-paired driving Increasingly, student groups aredeveloping approaches that emphasize the posi-tive ways in which youths can help their friendsand classmates. A nuber of student testifiers,for instance, reported their experiences withintervention, peer-to-peer counsel, and role mod-eling. Listening to more than 40 high schoolstudents and several adult organizers, the Com-mission learned of an impressive array of extra-curricular programs. Essentially, these pro-grams consisted of various combinations of sixdifferent types of activities:

Programs

I. Educulion. Aimed at informing peers, par-ents, and younger students, activities in thiscategory included sponsoring speakers, perform-ing skits and plays, composing rap songs, devel-oping public service announcements, simulatingcar crashes and displaying wrecked automobiles.Among the more creative activities was the pub-lication of a Youth Yellow Pages by RhodeIsland high school students that contained infor-mation (and telephone numbers for further in-formation) on potentially embarrassing subjectssuch as the use of alcohol and other drugs, preg-nancy, obtaining a job, and overcoming a poorself-image. Other innovative activities includedthe development of video tapes depicting whathappens when youths are arrested, adjudicated,and punished for driving while impaired; andthe publication of a parent resource bookletthat explained the school's drug and alcoholproblems, informed parents how to detect signsof drug abuse, and provided a list of substanceabuse treatment centers.

25

2. Role Modeling. As previously noted, older stu.-dents can perform a valuable role in workingwith children in lower grades. This work neednot be limited to classroom instruction. As testi-mony revealed, opportunities exist for highschool and college students to participate in theextracurricular events of younger students. Forinstance, members from Washington SAFTYEclubs have acted as chaperones at alcohol-freejunior high school dances, while one SAFTYEclub instituted an Adopt-a-buddy program inwhich a high school student adopts ..in elemen-tary student and acts as a positive r )1e model.3. Peer Counseling. Although it 'hsually requirestraining from professional counselors, some stu-dent groups provide peer counseling. A varietyof formats are available to student groups thatwish to offer counseling. Teen advice columns inschool newspapers, alcohol hot lines, and face-to-face counseling have all been used. One highschool reported establishing two peer supportgroups, one group for students returning fromrehabilitation centers and one for students whohave family members with problems involvingalcohol and other drugs.

4. Alcohol-free activities. The most commonform of extracurricular activity is the sponsor-ship of alcohol and drug-free events. Eventsrange from once-a-year celebrations such asProject Graduation to the regularly-scheduledactivities of organizations like STOPP whichsponsors hayriies, sleighrides, barbeques, bowl-a-thons, ski trips, canoe trips, and dances. Dis-cussions revealed that groups which desire tochange significantly the behavior of their peersmust offer activities on a regular basis. Once-a-year celebrations may publicize the issue ofyouth impaired driving, but they offer littlepromise of altering the habits of adolescentswho routinely drink and drive while socializing.

According to a Vermont survey, a high corre-lation exists between social activities and sub-stance abuse. The more frequently students par-ticipate in social activities, the greater their re-ported use of alcohol and other drugs. This dataemphasizes the importance of alcohol-freeevents; for it suggests that those who socializemost are the ones whom anti-impaired drivingefforts need to reach to reduce the occurrence ofdrinking and driving. The problem, of course, isto persuade young people that alcohol is not anecessary ingredient of social activity. Here, thealcohol beverage industry's identification of al-cohol with entertainment is an impediment, asis the limited concept of entertainment that toooften exists among youths. Several times during

16

the hearings youths complained that there wasnothing to do for fun in their town except drink.Imaginatively planned extacurricular events areimportant if they demonstrate, by example, thatkeg parties and tailgate bashes do not exhaustthe possibilities of social entertainment.

5. Conferences and Summer Camps. Camps andconferences play an important role in programdevelopment and expansion. Ranging in scopefrom one day annual conferences to week longsummer camps, they provide a forum for ex-changing information, evaluating activities,teaching leadership skills, and renewing the en-thusiasm and commitment of those involved inyouth programs. As one youth testified, theTexas War on Drugs summer camp "showedthat you were able to have fun without usingdrugs and alcohol and that there were all theseother kids out there that were saying the samething that you were, that you weren't alone."

6'. Sate Rides Programs. The final type of extra-curricular activity, and undoubtedly the mostcontroversial, is the safe rides program. Al-though hotly debated at the hearings, safe ridesprograms are popular in many communities.The Safe Rides Program of Whatcom County,Washington serves as an example of a projectthat has successfully generated community sup-port. Designed by a community task force com-posed of high school students, law enforcementofficials. Red Cross workers, members of thelocal DWI Task Force, and representatives ofthe church community, it solicited funding fromthe United Way and received liability insurancefrom the Boy Scouts Explorers program. Operat-ing out of the Red Cross office, it uses a RedCr, ss vehicle to transport students home. Alocal video store donates movies to students onduty; and, at the time of the Seattle hearing, aRed Cross intern had been working with thestudents to develop public service announce-ments to publicize the program. Communitysupport, according to Julia Peterson of theWhatcom County Safety Council, has made theprogram a success.

Although the hearings could hardly be de-scribed as contentious, the subject of safe ridesprograms provoked considerable debate. It was,in fact, the only topic which elicited an irrecon-cilable difference of opinion among the testifi-ers. The controversy centered on the perceptionthat safe rides programs focus only on the prob-lem of impaired driving without condemningunderage drinking. Those who criticized SADDand safe rides programs argued that the best

? 6

prevention of teen impaired driving incidents isthe prevention of impairment. "We want [stu-dents] to realize", said Tom Cullen, ExecutiveDirector of the Massachusetts Governor's Alli-ance Against Drugs, "that not only is drunkdriving wrong, but drunkenness per se is wrong.[Young people] are rational human beings, andthey should do nothing to render that rational-ity inoperable." Opponents of safe rides pro-grams maintained that eliminating youth im-paired driving requires a clear and consistentmessage that alcohol consumption by underageyouths is unacceptable. All other efforts, theycontended, are halfway measures that fail toaddress the root of the problem: societal toler-ance of underage drinking and a norm of alco-hol use among teenagers. As Deborah Jarvis,coordinator of the Oregon student movementOSSOM, pointed out, it is laudable that stu-dents care enough not to allow others to drinkand drive. However, it is equally important, shecontinued, that young people participating insafe rides programs don't enable their friends tocontinue to drink, leading them to expect thatsomeone will always be there to take care ofthem. "We must teach young people", she con-chiled, "that friends care enough to confrontfriends about behaviors that are harmful tothemselves or others."

Proponents of safe rides programs readilyagreed that the norm of alcohol use amongyouth lies at the heart of the problem, but theywere less optimistic abo,it the prospect of alter-ing that norm. Recovering teen alcoholic SusanHolbrook declared that "there's a lot of reerpressure to drink . . . and that's not goIng tostop". As president of a SADD chapter, shenoted, "the motto of our group is 'Friends don'tlet friends drive drunk' . . . not 'Friends don'tlet friends drink'. And with peer pressure, andwith the way it is, we're going to have to keepthat, until things change." Educator and foot-ball coach Roy Curtis concurred: "SADD is notthe answer, but it begins where the action is, atthe parties . . . Somebody has to take the initia-tive and plan some intervention." Speaking forthe national SADD organization, Bill Cullinanereiterated the defense of safe rides programs:"SADD is concerned with the reality of life. Ifwe lived in a perfect world, we could tell theyouth of America 'don't do illegal drugs ordrink' and they would respond in a very positiveway. The Contract for Life and SADD addressthat less than perfect world where some youngpeople choose to drink illegally and drive."

Safe rides programs may not be the final solu-tion to the problem of youth impaired driving,

17

but according to their supporters, they are ahelpful step toward saving lives. Through theestablishment of such programs, the roads aremade safer for everyone. Furthermore, propo-nents declared, safe rides programs attract stu-dents who might be turned off by a message ofabstinence. Once youth have become accus-tomed to not drinking and driving, they maycut back or stop drinking. The important thing,as one youth program coordinator emphasized,is to get students involved with choices and re-sponsibilities in the hope that they will learn tomake the right decisions. If safe rides programscan promote even an incremental increase inresponsible behavior among young people, sup-porters agreed, then they make a positive con-tribution worthy of support.

During the course of the hearings, it becameapparent that the five categories of extracurric-ular activitiespeer education, role counseling,alcohol-free events, summer camps and saferides programsall encountered similar prob-lems. These problems included difficulty in ohtaining the active involvement of more than asmall percentage of the student body, difficultyin reaching high risk segments of the youthpopulation, especially males, and difficulty inretaining membership. Behind all these difficul-ties lay the phenomenon of peer pressure.

Peer PressurePeer pressure is clearly a factor with which

all youths and all activity organizers must con-tend. One college studen., testifying or its per-vasiveness, went so far as to say, "peer pressureis probably the most important thing in manyteenagers' lives. If they don't fit in with theirpeers then life isn't worth living. Even if it goesagainst the morals and teachings of their par-ents." The susceptibility of youth to peer pres-sure manifests itself in twc ways. Not only doesit make it more difficult to gain student supportfor extra. r activities, but it also maydivide the body into two groupsthosewho drink and those who do notand causeextracurricular programs to become a haven forthe latter rather than a vehicle for changingthe behavior of the former. This problem maybe compounded by complacency. Parents, teach-ers, and even the student members themselvesmay believe that the problems of underagedrinking and impaired driving are being ade-quately addressed by the mere presence of orga-nizational countermeasures when, in fact, thestudent groups sponsoring those activities have

little contact with those who actually drink anddrive.

Suggestions From TestifiersSix suggestions were made for increasing the

effectiveness of extracurricular programs.First, a forum should exist for the regular

exchange of ideas and information. Newsletters,conferences, and networking are indispensableelements for disseminating information andshould be encouraged.

Second, student safety groups should developthe concept of linkage. Linkage, in this sense,involves conducting joint projects with otherschool clubs and encouraging other clubs to pro-mote driving and alcohol awareness. Linkage isuseful in that it not only expands t, ie number ofstudents involved, but also prevents safety clubmembers from getting burned out by attemptingto do too much.

Third, students should be permitted to runtheir own activities. Programs are most effec-tive when the initiative fer the activity as wellas the implementation are left to youths.

Fourth, high school program organizersshould reach out to freshmen or sophomoreswhen they first enter high school to compensatefor high turnover rates. If high school programscomplement this thrust with a program of visit-ing elementary and junior high school class-rooms, incoming freshmen or sophomores maybe predisposed to participate in high school ac-tivities.

Fifth, communities should recognize the COT

tributions of young people who work to reduceimpaired driving by granting them scholarshipsand awards. Sixth, laws should be strictly en-

forced and adult support readily given to youthefforts to change the norm of drinking and driv-in-, This last point deserves further elaboration.

With notable regularity, youth testifierscalled for stricter enforcement of laws andharsher penalties for DWI offenders. "I believethat we need stiffer penalties," said one youth."For instance, if you can put them in jail ortake away their driver's license. . . . We needstiffer penalties because the students will justkeep on doing it over and over again until theyfind out something's really going to happen." Inthe light of pervasive peer pressure to drink,calls from youth for stricter laws and betterenforcement should come as no surprise; foradult support legitimates the decisions of youthwho choose not to drink and makes it easier forthem to justify their actions to their peers. Peti-tions from young people for stronger sanctionsshould be seen as a plea to the adult communi-ty, a plea to buttress the efforts of concernedstudents to change the norm of underage drink-ing that exists among their peers.

As Clay Roberts noted, young people becomeuncomfortable when they see themselves out-side the norm. The task, then, is to change thenorm so that youths no longer consider it "cool"to drink and drive. The extracurricular activi-ties outlined in this section constitute the firststep toward that goal. But these efforts requirecommunity support. The following sections out-line ways in which parents, community leaders,employers, law enforcement officials, licensingauthorities and the judiciary can contribute tothis effort to make youth impaired driving so-cially intolerable.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Extacurricular' Youth programs should focus on preventing drinking and other drug use, while

recognizing the need for intervention strategies to address drinking and drivingproblems and other dangerous behaviors. These programs should be based on aclear, consistent philosophy and should be evaluated regularly.

* School authorities should encourage extracurricular safety clubs and activities.These activities should be student run and emphasize a peer-to-peer approach.Parents need to be actively involved in supporting these activities.

' To communicate the seriousness of impaired driving violations and legitimateyouth-based extracurricular programs, effective police enforcement and courtsanctions for youthful drinking and driving are necessary.

' Every high school should have a staff person who coordinates substance abuse andimpaired driving prevention activities. Schools should work clorely with personnelfrom the treatment community, law enforcement agencies, social serviceorganizations, and other community groups to establish guidelines and developtraining programs for these substance abuse coordinators.

' States should establish and participate in a network of student safety clubs andsponsor statewide student safety conferences. Awards, grants and scholarshipsshould be given in recognition of outstanding work in youth impaired drivingprograms.

State, local and private sources should pledge funding for student extracurricularactivities.

19? cti

III. Community ResponsibilitiesThe campaign to end youthful impaired driv-

ing takes as its aim nothing less than changingthe norms of youth behavior. To achieve thisgoal, young people must be presented with aconsistent message and clear expectations ofconduct from all elements of the community.Schools, businesses, court officials, law enforce-ment agents, community associations and themedia each have important roles in this endeav-or. Nonetheless, the primary responsibility forinstilling in children a sense of social responsi-bility lies with parents. By taking a firm standwithin their family against underage drinkingand by joining forces with other concerned citi-zens in the community, parents possess a meansof influencing their own children's behavior aswell as changing the general societal toleranceof alcohol consumption by youth.

The testimony on community-based programsfocused on the role of parents. Testifiers empha-sized that parents have a responsibility to re-spond to the problem of youth impaired drivingin two ways. First, parents have an obligation toundertake individual prevention efforts in thehome. These efforts include both general meas-ures, such as instilling in children an ability toresist peer pressure, as well as spclific actionssuch as learning to detect the signs of alcoholand drug use. Second, parents have an obliga-tion to support organized community actiongroups. Working as a group, parents can pro-mote the social norm of alcohol-free activitiesand can encourage police, judges, lawmakersand retail alcohol dispensers to address serious-ly the issue of youth impaired driving.

In discussing the -',Ial responsibility of par-ents, both in the home and in the community,testifiers emphasized three themes:

A need exists for parental education.Without education, parents often remainunaware of the seriousness of the prob-lem and uninformed about the counter-measures they can initiate.

A need exists to utilize the media effec-tively. The media, as speakers noted, con-stitutes an important tool for drawing at-tention to social problems and can stimu-late parental involvement in impaireddriving countermeasures.

A need exists to coordinate communityactivities at the local and state level. AsMajor Woodmansee of the WashingtonState Patrol declared, communities pos-sess an abundance of talent and resourcesto combat the problem of youth impaireddriving. The need is to coordinate effec-tively these resources in a community-wide network so that the activities ofthose involved in education, adjudication,alcohol counseling, law enforcement andhighway safety complement and reinforceone another.

The ultimate goal of community-based activi-ties is to change the norm that encouragesyoung people to drink and drive. To accomplishthis, youth must understand that they have aresponsibility to refrain from activities that areharmful to themselves and others. The develop-ment of this sense of responsibility originates athome with the effort of parents to instruct theirchildren. Therefore, the discussion of communi-ty-based activities began with a description ofthe parents' role. In this discussion, testifierscovered three important subjects. They ex-plained why the parents' role is so crucial. Theyexplained what parents can do to influencetheir children's drinking and driving behavior.And they expounded on the need for parentaleducation.

The Important Role of ParentsThe first topic concerned the importance of

parental instruction and received considerableattention. New Hampshire high school seniorMichelle Haas pointed out that laws are lesseffective in reducing underage drinking thanthe expectations parents set for their children'sbehavior. Compliance with a law, after all, de-pends on an individual's willingness to abide byit. "If teenagers want to drink, they're going todrink; they'll find a way to do it," Haas de-clared. "So it's really in the house, the educa-tion from inside the home, that's what it's allabout."

The testimony of Michelle supported researchfindings which suggested that parents are themost important influence on a youth's decisionnot to use alcohol and other drugs. Dr. DavidHawkine reported that surveys by the Universi-

21

30

ty cf Washington reveal that when studentswere asked why they had not used alcohol, theymost frequently mentioned their own parents asthe reason for that decision. Similarly, when aMichigan State University survey asked teen-agers what factors would reduce the amount ofalcohol they consumed, 70% to 90% respondedthat parental actions such as supervising par-ties, keeping a closer control over home alcoholsupplies, and making a greater effort to discusstheir weekend activities would reduce theirdrinking habits.

Testifiers emphasized the central role of par-ents because a lack of parental support can un-dermine even the best programs instituted byschools, courts and law enforcement agencies.Texas police officer Eddie Garth spoke of thecounterproductive effect parents have whenthey tolerate their child's impaired driving. Hedescribed what frequently happens after arrest-ing a youth for impaired driving: "the next dayMom and Dad will give me a call and [ask] whyarer't the police catching burglars and rapistsinstead of arresting Johnny or Suzy who hasnever touched a drop of alcohol. . . An attitudelike this by parents is frustrating and discourag-ing to officers. Similar reactions by parents justgive more fuel to the teen's own sense of beingwronged by the system."

Instead of undermining the efforts of law en-forcement officials, parents should develop aconcern about youth impaired driving and act toreduce the potential for its occurrence. Testifi-ers recommended, for instance, that parentswork to instill self-confidence in their children,since self-confidence is so important for resist-ing peer pressure. Parents also should insistthat children obey the law and discipline themfor misconduct. Testifiers elaborated further onthe subject of good parenting skills.

To reduce the likelihood of troubled adoles-cent: turning to alcohol as an escape from theproblems of life, parents need to foster a senseof security and self-worth in their children. Inthe words of Texas high school student Marga-ret Bergdoll, "kids need smart adults, parentsand teachers that teach them right from wrong.But perhaps most importantly, children need apositive image about themselves. If children areable to maintain such a positive image, thenmaybe when they reach high school, they willhave enough pride in themselves to be able tosay 'no' to these negative pressures."

Emotional support and a positive self-imagemay deter adolescents from drinking because ofpersonal problems or peer pressure, but they donot necessarily discourage the youthful bent

toward experimentation and the search fornovel sensations that also contribute to under-age drinking. To restrict this tendency, parentsneed to establish and enforce consequences. Tes-tifiers of all ages testified to the indispensabilityof supervision and consequences. As Judge AndyDevine of Toledo, Ohio, observed, "if you're rais-ing children, there's got to be consequences [formisconduct]." Love, like discipline, is insuffi-cient by itself. Only the combination of love anddiscipline, he remarked, "gets a kid from child-hood to adulthood".

Parents can take a range of specific actions toreduce the potential for underage drinking tooccur. Openly expressing concern and disap-proval, stressing rules more clearly, monitoringsocial activities, trying harder to detect drink-ing, applying discipline, keeping watch over thehousehold alcohol supply, and prohibiting youthfrom having unsupervised parties while the par-ents are away from home are all important ac-tivities. Of these, the last activity deserves par-ticular attention, for research profiling youthimpaired driving incidents by Michigan StateUniversity professor Charles Atkins found thata large portion of incidents followed weekendparties that typically occurred when parentswere not at home.

Parental EducationThe central role that parents can play in

curbing underage impaired driving led to theconclusion that greater emphasis must beplaced on educating parents. Youth testifiers, inparticular, stressed the need for parental educa-tion. It's true, said high school student MauritaMader, "that parents are totally oblivious tcwhat's going on in their children's lives. Manyparents don't even [know] that the students aregoing out and getting drunk. And they don't askenough questions from their kids like wherethey were the night before, or how come theycame in so late." Miss Mader's conclusion thatparents need to be made more aware of theirchildren's behavior was corroborated by re-search at Michigan State University. Accordingto Professor Atkins, researchers found thatwhile 60% to 70% of parents believed underagedrinking occurs, only 20% believe that theirown children drink. Findings such as these sug-gest that education is needed to inform parentsof the scope of the youth drinking problem andto convince them that their children, not justother youth, may be drinking and driving.

22

31

Role ModelingThe discussion of parental education led

many testifiers to address the subject of rolemodeling. Both educators and youths consistent-ly emphasized the importance of good adult rolemodels, maintaining that heavy drinking amongparents legitimates drinking in the eyes ofmany children. "What we don't often impressupon adults is how intoxication by parents setsan example for their children," said TomTaylor, President of the Independent InsuranceBrokers of Washington "What kind of exampledo we set if we drink and drive, or let a friendhave one too many at a party and look theother way when they pull out of the drive, orboast about drinking exploits in front of chil-dren? . . . The connection between our actionsas adults and our children's actions needs to bestressed," Taylor concluded, and an ideal placeto stress it is in parental education programs.

Testimony on parental role modeling raisedthe question of whether parents have a specialresponsibility not to drink and drive. Testifierswere divided in opinion. Some believed that par-ents should refrain from drinking and drivingin order to set a good example for their chil-dren. Others noted that youth and adults exhib-it different drinking and driving patterns thatjustify the prohibition on underage drinkingwhile permitting adults to drink in moderationand drive.

In general, youth testifiers were very sensi-tive to the appearance of a double standard.High school student Karen Olsen, for example,stated: "One thing I think is real important isthat parents aren't hypocritical and say 'Pleasedon't drink and drive' and then go out and dothe same thing." Juvenile court judge PhilipTrompeter, on the other hand, noted that youngpeople display distinctly different habits ofdrinking and driving that place them at greaterrisk than adult drivers. Youth tend to drinkmore in a shorter period of time, drive longerdistances, carry more passengers, drive faster,and possess a greater feeling of invulnerabilitythan adults who drink and drive. These charac-teristics suggest the dilemma of parents whoinsist that their children not drink and driveeven if they do so themselves.

The first half of the testimony on community-based activities described what parents can doin their own homes to combat the problem ofyouth impaired driving. In the second half ofthe testimony, speakers discussed the impactparents can make when they join together toform community groups.

23

Community OrganizationsWorking as a group, parents can take a

number of measures to combat the problem.They can promote social norms for alcohol-freeparties. They can encourage informal network-ing among parents. They can produce informa-tional materials. They can provide constructivealternative activities. They can publicize theteenage alcohol problem through the massmedia. They can persuade police to give higherpriority to surveillance and enforcement. Theycan lobby for more effective legislation. Andthey can encourage stores and bars to stop sell-ing alcohol to minors.

Building an effective community organizationis often a difficult process. Testifiers devotedattention to two recurring problems: 1) the prob-lem of attracting and maintaining an activemembership; and 2) the problem of establishingsatisfactory liaisons with schools, courts and lawenforcement agencies. To overcome these diffi-culties, testifiers recommended that communityorganizers: make effective use of the media;share information and borrow ideas from othercommunity organizations; and coordinate activi-ties at both the local and state level.

Using the Media

One of the most common obstacles communitygroups encounter is enlisting public participa-tion. To overcome this problem, testifiers recom-mended using the media. Organizers of a Wash-ington community campaign generated publicinvolvement by utilizing local television person-alities to publicize and participate in the cam-paign. According to David Hawkins, "It was thecombination of TV and the school inviting themthat got parents to become involved." TomCullen noted a second reason why communitygroups should make use of the media: if anissue is not in the newspapers, people do notbelieve it is a problem. Furthermore, the publicattention cast on the issue by such publicityoften puts pressure on police, schools and busi-nesses to become more involved, thus facilitat-ing an integrated strategy.

In addition to using the media, it is importantfor community groups to establish contacts withother groups, find out what they are doing, andshare information with them. Guidance, as testi-fiers noted, can often best be obtained fromthose who already have experience in dealingwith similar problems. Resources, such as ahandbook that the state of Michigan distributedto all parent groups, provide an excellent means

`,4 2

of disseminating information among communityorganizations.

CoordinationWhile information exchanges and an effective

use of the media are important elements incommunity programs, testifiers most frequentlysingled out proper coordination as the crucialvariable of success. Coordination needs to occurat both the local and state level. At the locallevel, a community task force provides the vehi-cle for collaboration and may include such fig-ures as the superintendent of schools, the policechief, the juvenile court judge, health profes-sionals, the ABC license inspector, students,business leaders and representatives of parentorganizations. Responsibility for organizing acommunity task force differs from one area toanother. In Massachusetts, the superintendentof schools commonly assumes responsibility forleading the task force, although some testifiersargued that juvenile court judges also are well-suited to act as community catalysts.

Community organizations engage in a widevariety of activities. The Tarrant County TaskForce, Texas, for instance, reported offering rec-ommendations to solve problems associated withprocessing DWI offenders, purchasing breathtesting and video taping equipment for law en-forcement agencies, developing training pro-grams for public prosecutors who handle DWIcases, and sponsoring a contest for high schoolstudents to design an anti-DWI billboard. Acommunity task force can also facilitate the res-olution of potential problems. It provides aforum for resolving jurisdictional disputes thatmay arise between school principals and lawenforcement officials. Finally, it offers the possi-bility of enhancing the effectiveness of pro-grams that require cooperation between differ-ent sectors of the community. Colleges, for ex-ample, can enforce a policy of no underage

24

drinking on campus; but this policy may onlyworsen the problem of drinking and driving ifbars in the vicinity of the campus continue toserve minors. A community task force thatbrings together college administrators and barowners offers the possibility of ensuring thatthe college policy, which looks good in theory,actually works in practice.

In addition to coordinating their efforts at thelocal level, community groups n'3ed to ensurethat proper coordination occurs with state-wideorganizations. Typically, coordinative bodies atthe state level are composed of individuals suchas the Attorney General, the Commissioner ofEducation, the Governor's Highway Safety Rep-resentative, the Director of the State Depart-ment of Mental Health, business leaders andrepresentatives from major anti-drunk drivingorganizations. Examples of the usefulness ofsuch coordinative bodies abound. In Virginia, analliance of state level agencies formed a founda-tion composed of business leaders to solicitfunds for programs to supplement public sectoractivities. The Virginia alliance, known asCADRE, also conducts workshops on how to or-ganize local communities and reported estab-lishing 107 community-level organizations.

State level coordinative bodies also can per-form an important role in encouraging legisla-tion. In Ohio, a highway safety coalition of morethan 500 companies formed a few years ago towork for seat belt legislation. Since that time, ithas gone on to support other highway safetymeasures, including legislation that succeededin raising the minimum drinking age. As thetestimony made clear, business participation incommunity coalitions like this is a key ingredi-ent of success. Descriptions of some of the waysin which the business community can uniquelycontribute to the battle against youth impaireddriving may be found in the next chapter.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONSCommunity Responsibilities' All elements of the community must be coordinated in a system-wide approach to

share resources and support each other in responding to alcohol, drugs andimpaired driving problems among youths.All elements must agree upon and communicate the single message that underagedrinking, illegal drug use and impaired driving are unlawful, unhealthy andunacceptable.One means of achieving this coordinated community approach is through a regionaltask force.

* Based on their stature and authority in the community, juvenile court judgesshould be enlisted to lead community efforts to combat the problem of drinking anddriving by youth.

* Parents should be active in community efforts to counter drinking and other druguse among youth. Parental responsibilities include:1) supporting enforcement of minimum drinking age laws for youths2) promoting the social norm of alcohol-free parties for youths3) talking with other parents about teenage activities.

* Within their own families, parents must establish clearly-stated and firmly-enforcedconsequences for children who unlawfully consume alcohol or drive impaired.

' Communities should provide information and make classes available to parentsthat:1) helps parents become aware of the problem of underage alcohol and other druguse2) stresses the importance of parental role modeling and family communication3) offers effective strategies for parenting4) assists parents in identifying problems that may lead to drinking.

' State agencies involved in traffic safety, substance abuse, law enforcement andalcoholic beverage control should work together with local agencies and the privatesector to provide resources for community activities.

' Communities should periodically evaluate the success and problems of theirprograms and assess the level of community awareness.

25 14

#

IV. Work-Based ActivitiesAs a category, work-based programs encom-

pass three distinct types of activities: 1) pro-grams that businesses institute for their em-ployees; 2) activities that businesses sponsor forthe community; and 3) measures that one par-ticular type of business - retail alcohol vendors -

implement to restrict the sale of beverages toyouth. In the discussion of work-based pro-grams, testifiers maintained that private sectorefforts have been too limited. Retail vendors, forexample, have not taken adequate steps to limitthe availability of alcohol to youth; while thebusiness community in general, with a few ex-ceptions, has not recognized its potential for in-fluencing the problem of youth-impaired drivingthrough employee programs and community ac-tivities.

Employee ProgramsEmployee programs constitute the most obvi-

ous avenue for business activity. Althoughunder-utilized, they are an important counter-measure; for they offer the possibility of reach-ing portions of the youth population that schoolprograms and extracurricular activities oftenmiss, namely school dropouts and high schoolgraduates under the age of 21. Possessing themost promising forum for educating these hard-to-reach youth groups, businesses bear a par-ticular responsibility for instituting educationprograms that target young employees.

The rationale for the private sector to intro-duce employee programs is not purely altruistic.As Nick Kirchoff, Corporate Safety Manager ofPacific Northwest Bell, noted, drug and alcoholprograms for employees of all ages often makegood business sense: "Because most companiesprovide health insurance for employees, retireesand dependents, it makes good sense that acci-dent prevention programs extend beyond theconfines of the work place. One family mem-ber's abuse of drugs and/or alcohol will affectthe entire family's ability to function safely. It'sfor this reason that a wide variety of education-al and awareness programs should be developedand presented to employees and their familieson an ongoing basis."

If businesses wish to minimize off-the-job inju-ries to employees, the question arises: what typeof programs should they consider? Hearing tes-

27

gilltifiers recommended five initiatives for employ-ers:

1) Include sanctions in the company policyfor employee drinking during workhours;

2) Institute an employee assistance pro-gram that offers counseling and alcoholrehabilitation treatment to employeeswho have drinking problems;

3) Develop an educational program on alco-hol use and the dangers of impaired driv-ing that targets young employees in par-ticular;

4) Provide an education program for em-ployees with children that provides infor-mation on parenting skills and role mod-eling,

5) Encourage community groups to addressemployees on the subject of alcoholabuse and impaired driving.

During the testimony, witnesses cited success-ful examples of each of these five types of initia-tives. Tom Cullen of the Governor's AllianceAgainst Drugs, for instance, spoke of the partici-pation of Massachusetts businesses in a pro-gram entitled "Employees Are Parents, Too"which featured workplace discussions of familydynamics involving alcohol. Shirley Anderson ofthe Washington DWI Victims' Panel describedhow her organization brings a panel composedof DWI victims and offenders to workplaces,such as military bases, to discuss the tragedy ofimpaired driving accidents. As these cases illus-trate, the business community can either devisealcohol and drug programs themselves or en-courage community groups to conduct pro-grams. In either case, the important thing is toutilize fully the possibilities that the workplaceoffers as a forum for drug and alcohol educationand training.

Community InvolvementIn addition to providing programs for their

own employees, businesses make an importantcontribution by supporting community basedand school based activities. As with employeeprograms, testifiers emphasized that the privatesector has much to gain from promoting com-

3 5

munity programs. "We tell people in the work-place, 'you've a much better chance of drug freeemployees if we can get a drug free school,' "said Tom Cullen in describing how the gover-nor's office in Massachusetts promotes public-private alliances.

In deciding how to assist a community, a busi-ness needs to identify its most effective meansof reaching young people. Often, this will bethrough a community or state coalition. TheBank of Boston, for instance, has provided sup-port for community programs by donating onecent from each credit card transaction duringthe holiday season to a statewide coalition. TomTsylor, President of the Independent InsuranceAgents of Washington, suggested that business-es coordinate their support for youth programsthrough the Chambers of Commerce. Businessesneed to be contacted, asked for support and re-warded, he remarked; and the Chamber of Com-merce offers a vehicle for doing that.

Successful programs, however, do not alwaysdepend on the existence of a well-organized coa-lition. In some instances, a single company maysee the possibility for making a positive contri-bution and take the initiative without waitingfor a coordinated community effort. The exam-ple of Bally's Aladdin's Castle provides a case inpoint. Recognizing that impaired driving consti-tuted the primary cause of death of its clientele,principally youth between the ages of 15 and 19,Bally's decided to capitalize on its access toyouth and devised a video driving game for itsentertainment centers that included a warningto players at the end of the game not to drinkand drive. Working in conjunction with MADDand SADD, Bally's also produced an informa-tional flier on impaired driving that is mailed toyouth on their birthdays along with a gift certif-icate. Further, it has used its video games insponsoring national fund raising events forMADD and SADD, produced Public Service An-nouncements in cooperation with the Amuse-ment Machine Manufacturers Association, andhosted what it termed "None for The Road"parties for youth on holidays such as St. Pat-rick's Day and New Year's Eve when youngpeople frequently drink. In all of these activi-ties, Bally's demonstrated the means by which acorporation can creatively utilize its own uniqueresources in contributing to the campaignagainst youth-impaired driving.

28

The Responsibilities of Alcohol BeverageRetailers

The final theme of the testimony on work-based programs concerned what one type ofbusinessretail alcohol vendorscan do to re-strict the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors.Retail sellers and servers have a double incen-tive for undertaking efforts to prevent drinkingand driving by youth. Not only do they have aresponsibility to uphold the law prohibiting al-cohol sales to individuals under 21, but theyalso may have a liability for the injuries causedby those to whom they sell alcohol. Several par-ticipants noted that the issue of liability in par-ticular has served as a strong stimulus for moti-vating retail vendors to acquaint themselveswith their legal responsibilities and take stepsto ensure that those responsibilities are met.

Testifiers identified three steps that retail dis-pensers can take to restrict alcohol sales toyouth. Dispensers can implement training pro-grams for sales clerks or bar servers; they canpublicize their alcohol sale policies; and theycan institute self-policing measures. Of thesethree steps, training programs received thegreatest attention, as testifiers repeatedly men-tioned the necessity of properly training em-ployees who sell alcohol. Training, noted Alco-hol Beverage Safety Commissioner GeorgeMcCarthy, is especially important in situationswhere the bartenders or sales clerks themselvesare under 21 and may be friends of the youthsattempting to purchase alcohol illegally.

Testifiers identified five skills that everytraining program should include:

1) How to ask for identification;

2) How to spot false ID's;

3) How to identify second party sales (pur-chases of alcohol by an adult on behalf ofunderage youths);

4) How to refuse to sell alcohol to patrons(because they lack proper identification,because it appears that they are buyingit for youth, or because they are visiblyinebriated);

5) How to handle difficult customers, par-ticularly those who become belligerent ata refusal to sell them alcohol;

Testifiers identified several problems connect-ed with server training courses. The first prob-lem is the high rate of employee turnover thatbars and convenience stores frequently experi-ence. When employers must pay for the cost ofsending their employees to training courses, a

3 6

high rate of turnover may deter an employerfrom participating in the program. The secondproblem centered on the question of who shouldtake responsibility for establishing server train-ing courses. Three alternatives seem to exist.Courses may be developed by the retail dispens-ers themselves, by government agencies, or byprivate institutions such as colleges. Successfulexamples of each arrangement were presentedat the hearings.

Southland Corporation's "Come of Age" pro-gram for its 7-Eleven stores serves as an exam-ple of an employer training course. Concernedabout the problem of underage alcohol purchas-ers, Southland Corporation instituted a programto train all of its employees who sell beer andwine. According to Southland spokeswomanRosemary Parker, 7-Eleven stores display signson the front door and cooler doors where beerand wine are kept that point out the state law,the age requirement, and the forms of identifi-cation which the stores accept. In addition,clerks wear buttons clearly informing customers"We ID under 25."

Not every company has the resources or theinclination to develop server training courses.Consequently, government agencies may wish toassume responsibility for offering trainingcourses. In general, testifiers felt that when gov-ernment action is required, the responsibility totrain licensees belongs at the most localizedlevel. District Attorney Bob Wilson fromDe Kalb County, Georgia, testified how his officehad established a training program for all estab-lishments in the county that serve and sell alco-hol. Believing that the district attorney has anobligation not only to inform these businesses oftheir legal liability but also to show them howto handle their responsibilities, Wilson orga-nized an alliance with the organization ArriveAlive, the Georgia Travel and Hospitality Asso-ciation, the county Solicitor's office, and theChamber of Commerce to cosponsor a programto educate county liquor licensees.

While a government entity like the districtattorney's office may be able to organize a pro-gram at the county level, state-level agencieswishing to initiate server education programsseldom have the resources to provide educationdirectly to all the alcohol licensees in a state.Consequently, a need may exist for the develop-ment of a private delivery system. Roy Hale,Coordinator of Seller Training for the Texas Al-coholic Beverage Commission, described the pri-vate delivery system his agency supervises. InTexas, education is provided by training schoolscertified by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

29

To obtain certification, a prospective trainingschool must have its proposed curriculum re-viewed. The Commission investigates theschool's seller training course and randomlymonitors course sessions to ensure the quality ofinstruction. Roy Hale concluded that a success-ful program must include three elements:strong minimum course requirements; an effec-tive monitoring system to maintain the integri-ty of the instruction; and a broad-based deliverysystem.

Neither the training programs organized bythe De Kalb County district attorney's office northe private school network supervised by theTexas Alcoholic Beverage Commission compelsthe attendance of retail sellers or servers. Thediscussion of both programs therefore raised theissue of participation by retailers. In the case ofthe De Kalb county program, District AttorneyWilson stressed that organizers must establish acredible program and approach retailers in anon-confrontational manner. He stated that byinvolving the police chiefs, judges, state legisla-tors and the Georgia Attorney General, and so-liciting the support of the wine and beer distrib-utors, the retailers were placed in a positionwhere they could not afford to ignore the invita-tion to participate. In the case of the Texasprogram, incentives were offered to participat-ing retailers. Employers who sent their employ-ees to a certified training course enjoyed condi-tional absolution from liability. This liability ab-solution may be withdrawn, however, if ABCinvestigators discover that an employer directlyor indirectly encourages his employees toengage in unlawful behavior.

Once retail establishments have made a com-mitment to restrict the purchase of alcohol byminors, they need to communicate this policy totheir patrons. Publicity for their policy servesfour purposes: it educates patrons who may beunfamiliar with the law and reminds the publicof the problem of alcohol misuse; it establishesthe expectation that young customers will berequired to show an ID, thus making it easieron servers and sales clerks; it deters attemptsby underage youth to purchase alcoholic bever-ages; and it stands as evidence that the estab-lishment made a good faith effort to upholdtheir legal responsibilities in the event of a li-ability lawsuit.

Participating in server training programs andpublicizing a store or bar's ID policy constitutethe first two components of a responsible retailprogram. The third element is self-policing. Re-tailers have a responsibility to ensure that their

3 7

employees adhere to company policies, makeuse of the training provided, and refuse to sellto minors. While law enforcement agents oftenemploy strategies for testing establishments tosee if they adhere to standards regarding sales

30

to minors, they are capable of investigating onlya small percentage of the licensed establish-ments. Therefore, self-regulation remains an in-dispensable element in efforts to restrict thesupply of alcohol to youth.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONSWork-based Activities' Employers should establish employee education programs that:

1) acquaint young employees with the dangers of alcohol/other drug use andimpaired driving2) offer adult employees parent training and information on juvenile substanceabuse.

3) offer counseling and alcohol rehabilitation treatment to employees who havedrinking problems.

' Employers should establish workplace policies for youths that include sanctions fordrinking and impaired driving during working hours.

* Businesses selling youth products and services should identify ways in which theyinterface with underage youths and utilize this opportunity to provide preventionmessages to them.

* Business leaders should be called upon to support local youth programs byproviding facilities and fund-raising assistance.

* Retailers of alcoholic beverages should recognize that the sale of their productsconfers special responsibilities. To uphold these responsibilities, retailers shouldestablish and enforce policies that prohibit the purchase of beverage alcohol byunderage youths. These policies should include:training all employees to 1) E.sk for identification; 2) refuse sales to those whoappear to be underage; 3) spot false forms of ID; 4) handle difficult customers; 5)identify second party sales---displaying the company policy at the point of sale (e.g. at the cash register or on abeverage cooler)offering incentives to clerks/bartenders who refuse sales to underage youthsimplementing self-policing strategies.

' State beverage control agencies should ensure that training programs are providedfor all licensees.

.,...---,.

, r ',..;

31

V. EnforcementUntil the early 1980's, the problem of drink-

ing and driving was generally perceived as aproblem to be handled solely by law enforce-ment efforts. Today that limited view of theproblem has disappeared, and the public hascome to recognize that impaired driving is acomplex issue whose solution requires far morethan law enforcement countermeasures alone.Enforcement, as testifiers repeatedly empha-sized, must be coupled with preventative educa-tion. "While enforcement action is necessary,the most effective weapon against substanceabuse is education for the community and ouryouth," stated Illinois State Police Deputy Su-perintendent William O'Sullivan. The impor-tance of combining education with enforcementwas highlighted by New York Motor VehicleCommissioner Patricia Adduci: "You only en-counter an enforcement program after you'vemade the mistake. My hope is that, with theseother [educational] programs, it will encourageyoung people...not to make the mistake." Bothenforcement and education, Adduci continued,are important. Enforcement is necessary as adeterrent; but because adolescents tend toignore the risk of arrest believing that they willnot be caught, enforcement alone is insufficient.It must be supplemented with educational pro-grams that teach young people the health haz-ards of drinking and driving.

Testimony at the hearings revealed thatmany law enforcement departments are activelyinvolved in educational programs. The IllinoisState Police, for example, engage in classroominstruction programs such as Drug Abuse Re-sistance Education (DARE) and State TrooperAttitudes and Responsibilities (STAR). TheWashington State Patrol joined in developing amulti-image program entitled "It's a Matter ofTime." The program utilizes nine computer-op-erated projectors, a stereo system and an 8 by25 foot screen for high school presentations.Young victims of auto crashes are featured inthe program.

Though educational activities are achievinggreater prominence on law enforcement agen-das, enforcement nevertheless remains their pri-mary responsibility. When asked about the com-parative effectiveness of education versus en-forcement, New Jersey Highway Safety DirectorWilliam Hayes replied, "In the best of all possi-

feble worlds, I'd say I'd love to give everybody allthe education and public information they couldhandle, but in terms of effectiveness, the deter-rence must be there from enforcement." Thequestion then arises: Is the deterrence there? Iseffective enforcement occurring today? Accord-ing to many witnesses, the answer is nolawenforcement efforts are inadequate.

Perceptions of RiskAt the Fort Worth hearing, youth testifiers

were asked explicitly, "Do you feel that enforce-ment is out there? Is there a perception of riskof being caught if you were underage and you'restopped [for impaired driving]?" Each of thethree high school students queried replied nega-tively. One of the students, Kevin Brown, wenton to explain: "No, because I hear a lot of kidswho get pulled over for MIP [minor in posses-sion] and all they do is just confiscate what theyhave and let them go. . . . I think that insteadof just confiscating whatever it is you have andthen letting you go, that there ought to be somesort of punishment."

In Chicago, high school students offered simi-lar comments regarding the leniency of law en-forcement officials. According to high schoolsenior Angie Stanfield: "From my own peergroup, most people who drink and drive, whenthey're caught, they're just released; and I thinkthey should be sent to some kind of rehab pro-gram where they might have some counsel-ing. . . . And [for a] second offense, I think theyshould be suspended from their driving. Andmaybe some jail sentence. They need to realizethat they can't get away with it."

Kay Chopard, the prosecuting attorney'scounsel from Des Moines, agreed with the youthtestifiers and went on to explain why, in Iowa,enforcement for youth offenders is not alwaysstrict:

"The arrest of adult offenders has been on therise. But there has not been a similar correlationwith juvenile offenders. There is also a differen-tiation in treatment, not only in the field butonce they're brought into the system. One of thefirst barriers, I guess, in the detection processand apprehensions is the attitude that we see inthe law enforcement officers out in the field. Ireally feel that their attitude reflects society's

33,q 0

attitudes. . . . A very common attitude is thefeeling that impaired behavior or experimentingis part of the growing-up process; that it is oftenviewed as a rite of passage, rather than a crimecommitted by juveniles and therefore, ratherthan bringing that juvenile into the system,where we might begin to assess and approachthe problem, the juvenile is instead either takenhome or taken to some location such as the sta-tion where he is not actually processed in anyway, but the parents are contacted and then theyare taken home."

Within the enforcement community itself, arecognition exists that laws concerning im-paired driving are not always rigorously en-forced. Enforcement must occur primarily atthe local level because local officials know theirown turf better than anyone else; yet it is at thelocal level that violations are most likely to beignored because of the familiarity betweenpolice and citizens. According to George McCar-thy of the Massachusetts Alcohol Beverage Con-trol Commission, "The ABCC gets hundreds ofcomplaints from people, sometimes anonymous,who say their complaints have been ignored bylocal authorities." Follow-up by the ABCC,McCarthy said, may result in angry denuncia-tions from local officials and police who dislikestate authorities entering their jurisdictionwithout forewarning.

Not all testifiers agreed that law enforcementinvolving minors is lax. Massachusetts Secre-tary for Public Safety Charles Barry noted thatthe fear of liability helps deter enforcement offi-cials from overlooking adolescent drinking.Barry recalled an episode in which two policeofficers from the town of Ware stopped an im-paired driver but then allowed him to continueon. Less than a mile from where he wasstopped, the driver was involved in a collision,and the town was sued successfully for over amillion dollars. The knowledge that they will beliable for irresponsible acts encourages police toenforce the law, Barry stated.

Obstacles to Effect EnforcementThough police may desire to enforce the law,

obstacles exist to impede their effort. At each ofthe hearings, law enforcement officers recount-ed the problems they face. Their complaints fre-quently focused on the cumbersome and time-consuming procedures required for the arrestand detention of juveniles. The problems theycited included the following:

In Iowa, the law requires juveniles to bedetained in separate facilities from adults,

34

not just in a separated area at an adultfacility. This law, it was reported, detersthe arrest of youths, particularly in ruralareas that are a long distance from a juve-nile facility.

In Tennessee, among other places, wit-nesses complained of inefficient juvenilecourt schedules and the inordinate length oftime that police officers sometimes mustspend waiting for a case to be heard. Know-ing that each arrest may require spendinghours it a courthouse, officers become lesslikely to arrest youths for drinking viola-tions.

In Texas, police officers are not allowedto administer a breath test to minors in thesame area where an adult DWI suspect isbeing tested; and that, according to onepolice sergeant, has created problems.

In some cases, the law is too narrow tocombat effectively drunk driving. The Texasopen container law, for example, requiresthat a police officer actually witness thedriver consuming alcohol. According to onefrustrated officer, a driver may have t...

open can of beer in his hand and alcohol onhis breath; but until the policeman sees thedriver drink from the can, he cannot makean arrest.

Proposed ImprovementsHaving cited some of the problems they en-

counter, law enforcement officials offered rec-ommendations to increase the effectiveness ofenforcement measures. The first recommenda-tion responded directly to the problem of arrest-ing and detaini.._ : -iuth. "We have to make itas easy to arrest a juvenile DUI offender as it isan adult if we're. going to get the police officersto start making DUI arrests," said TennesseeSergeant Ken Taylor of the Hamilton CountySheriffs Department. As a first step, he suggest-ed that the police and courts work together todevelop arrest guidelines for juvenile DWI of-fenders and thereby remove obstacles in thearrest process.

Further recommendations may be classifiedas falling within two categories: those that aimto prevent minors from obtaining alcohol, andthose that would increase the likelihood ofarrest for youth who drive impaired. Within thefirst category of recommendations, measureswere outlined that would target both the youthwho purchase alcohol and the bars and storesthat sell it to them.

41

1. Restricting Sales. Much of the commentaryon law enforcement concerned the ready avail-ability of alcohol and the need to restrict youngpeople's access to it. As testifiers from manystates pointed out, the accessibility of alcohol isgreatly facilitated by the use of false forms ofidentification. A number of recommendationswere made to reduce the use of fake ID's. InFlorida, law enforcement officials found that amajor problem existed with underage youth ob-taining driver's licenses in the name of an olderbrother or sister. According to John Harris ofthe Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Division,Florida officials were able to reduce this prob-lem by providing special training to the Depart-ment of Motor Vehicles personnel who issue li-censes. To combat the general problem of fakeID's and not only the problem of fraudulentlyobtained licenses, Alcohol Public Safety Com-missioner George McCarthy recommended ac-tively prosecuting youths who use fake ID's andsuggested establishing a national universal ID.

Enforcement efforts to restrict underagedrinking need to focus on the retailers who sellalcohol as well as the youth who buy it. Offi-cials from Washington, Massachusetts and Flor-ida all recommended programs that they havefound effective in policing bars and liquorstores. In Washington, the adoption of new tech-n )logies has enabled law enforcement officialstc develop more effective enforcement proce-dlires. Acquiring a centralized computer system,officials are able to gather data from police re-parts throughout the state on underage drink-ing incidents. Receiving a monthly printout onall licensed establishments, the Liquor ControlBoard is able to take administrative actionagainst establishments that repeatedly havebeen reported to have served minors. Statisticscompiled on alcohol abuse are made available totown officials, school departments and business-es to inform them of the scope of the alcoholabuse problem in their community.

Massachusetts and Florida have employedsimilar programs to monitor bars and storeswith reported sales to minors. In Massachusetts,where the program is known as Operation LastCall, the law requires judges to ask DWI offend-ers where they were drinking. When a licensedestablishment is named by offenders four timesIn a six-month period, the ABC Commissionsends the licensee a warning letter. In Florida,the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobaccoexperimented with a similar program but, find-ing it unsuccessful, dropped the program andfocused its efforts on sting operations thatemploy underage youth to investigate com-

35

plaints against stores and bars selling alcohol tominors. According to a Florida official, the stingprogram has been successful because industryleaders were consulted at the outset and as-sured that the program would initially concen-trate on the actual servers and sellers ratherthan the store owners.

2. Detecting Impaired Driving. The law en-forcement st.ategy outlined by testifiers consist-ed of two complementary approaches: restrictthe availability of alcohol so that those youthwho drive cannot drink; and establish DWI pa-trols and checkpoints to deter driving by thosewho drink. In pursuing the first approach, testi-fiers encouraged police to crack down on youthwho use fake ID's and bars and stores that sellalcohol to young people. In pursuing the secondapproach, testifiers recommended the followingthree measures:

1. Establish highly publicized checkpoints.According to New Jersey HighwaySafety Director William Hayes, highwaycheckpoints are the most effective deter-rent to impaired driving.

2. Reorganize DWI enforcement activities.As Sergeant Ken Taylor noted, juveniledrinking habits differ from adult drink-ing habits and therefore require a differ-ent enforcement strategy. In general,school-age juveniles are required to behome around midnight, and so DWI pa-trols need to be scheduled on earliershifts. Furthermore, juveniles are lesslikely to drink in bars and more likely todrink in parking lots, game rooms, atfootball or basketball games, at dances,and at lakes or beaches. Therefore,police need to patrol different areas thanthey would for adult DWI enforcement.Finally, police need to develop a goodworking relationship with high schoolsafety clubs to determine where juve-niles are having parties.

3. Impose penalties that really affect youth.In discussing his participation in pro-grams to restrict impaired driving, Offi-cer Eddie Garth stated that instead ofmerely issuing citations for MIP offend-ers, police need to arrest violators, takethem to jail, and impound their cars.Stringent measures, Garth noted, arenecessary to impress upon youth the se-riousness of the offense.

3. Enforcing the Law. A review of the testimo-ny reveals that witnesses, including youth,

u2

strongly supported active enforcement. Testifi-ers urged police to combat the problem of fraud-ulent ID's and encouraged investigators to crackdown on businesses that sell alcohol to youth.Support for strict enforcement arose from a rec-ognition of the inter-dependence of all efforts tostop underage drinking and driving. Poor en-forcement, they pointed out, adversely affectsthe entire range of anti-impaired driving activi-ties:

' It emboldens youth to break the law anddrink illegally.

It encourages unscrupulous stores andbars to sell alcohol to youth.

It removes an incentive for retailers toinstitute seller training programs.

It undermines educational activities andmakes it more difficult for young peopleto persuade their peers not to drink anddrive.

Finally, testifiers supported active enforce-ment because of the attitude it breeds towardthe law itself. Mr. .Wes "nith elucidated thisimportant dimension of enforcement. By permit-ting underage youth to drink, Smith declared,"We're not only allowing those kids to be vic-tims of their own drug use, but we're also in asituation now whets we're making the law thevictim, because kids are arrested for use ofdrugs or alcohol and that's filed away and noth-ing happens. And what we've taught kids is thelaw doesn't mean what it says. So we've notonly betrayed the kids, but we've betrayed thelaw."

36 4 3

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONSEnforcement* DWI patrols should target youthful impaired driving by:

1) focusing shift schedules and patrols on the hours when most impaired drivingoffenses by youths occur2) patrolling parties, parks, school events and other locations where young peopletend to gather3) using sobriety checkpoints.

* Law enforcement officia s and judges should work together to streamline arrestprocedures for juvenile impaired driving offenders. The following areas should betargeted for reform:1) arrangements for separate holding of juvenile offenders2) procedures for contacting parents3) procedures for providing juvenile offenders with medical checks4) excessive paperwork and down time for arresting officers5) lengthy court procedures that consume the time of arresting officers6) mechanisms for courts to provide feedback to arresting officers.

* Special training should be provided to police officers to alert them to theseriousness of juvenile drinking and driving violations and to teach police effectiveenforcement techniques for this age group.

' Command police and court officials should support the efforts of line officers toenforce the legal drinking age and youth impaired driving laws.

* Police agencies should work with the schools to develop joint programs that useuniformed officers to teach classes on substance-impaired driving.

' Police agencies should establish strategies to deter the sale of alcoholic beverages tounderage youths. Possible programs include:1) sting operations that employ supervised juveniles who attempt to purchasebeverap. alcohol2) operations which ask DWI offenders where they were served and then investigatefrequently named establishments3) tracking procedures that maintain a statistical record of establishments reportedto have made illegal sales of alcoholic beverages to youths.

37 41 4

VI. LicensingTestimony during the hearings revealed a va-

riety of ways in which licensing procedures andsanctions can be used to combat youth impaireddriving. While 23 states now administrativelyrevoke the licenses of drivers operating underthe influence of alcohol, a number of stateshave gone a step further and utilize licensesanctions to combat the specific problem of un-derage drinking. In those states, the use of afraudulent ID or the mere possession of alcoholby a minor may result in a license suspension.Suspensions or revocations, however, are notthe only means that licensing authorities haveof affecting the problem of impaired driving.

In addition to punishing offenders, licensingprocedures can be used to educate and evaluatedrivers. License applicants under age 18 inGeorgia, for instance, are required to attend aneducational course on the effects of alcohol,while convicted DWI offenders in some statesmay be granted a provisional license or havethe length of their suspension shortened uponcompletion of an alcohol treatment program. Li-censing authorities also might consider the cre-ation of a provisional license for youths. Carry-ing special restrictions and revocable for viola-tions of drinking and driving laws, provisionallicenses could ease novice drivers into responsi-bility and full license privileges.

Licensing authorities possess four principalmeans of affecting the problem of youth im-paired driving. They can:

1. Require the completion of an educationalprogram as a prerequisite to issuing li-censes to youth;

2. Suspend or revoke the licenses of youthwho violate underage drinking or im-paired driving laws;

3. Require the completion of educational,assessment, or treatment programsbefore relicensing youth whose licenseshave been revoked;

4. Take steps to ensure that the licensesthey issue are not misused or fraudulent-ly obtained.

Driver EducationEducational requirements constitute perhaps

the most common means for licensing authori-ties to influence the driving patterns of youth.

Testifiers repeatedly urged that maximum usebe made of this opportunity to reach youngpeople by requiring driver education courses todevote a specific amount of time to the subjectof impaired driving. To ensure that impaireddriving received adequate attention in NorthCarolina, the state legislature passed a law re-quiring driver education courses to devote 6 outof 30 hours of instruction to alcohol and itseffects. Authorities in Georgia devised an alter-native arrangement which requires all licenseapplicants under the age of 18 to attend acourse strictly devoted to drug and alcoholissues. The course is offered in high schools andcommunity colleges by the Georgia State Patrolor its trained instructors. A third variant ondriver education exists in New York where allnew license applicants, regardless of age, musttake a five-hour course which includes twohours devoted to the effects of alcohol on driv-ing. Courses in New York have eliminated theneed for public funding by using state-approvedprivate agencies which collect a nominal feefrom each applicant.

Driver education courses do not constitute thesole forum for licensing authorities to informyoung people of the perils of drinking and driv-ing. In Virginia, every 16 year-old who receivesa license must appear with his or her parentsbefore a juvenile court judge who hands overthe license to the child's parents in a specialcourtroom ceremony. Judges use this opportuni-ty to explain the rationale for a minimumdrinking age of 21, inform youth of the penal-ties they can expect if caught drinking and driv-ing, and ask parents to discuss the problem ofimpaired driving with their child. By appearingpersonally before a judge in the presence oftheir parents, youth hopefully will recognizethat driving is a privilege entailing serious re-sponsibilities.

Driver education enables authorities to reachyouth before they receive their licenses. Onceyouth are licensed, the threat of license suspen-sion or revocation constitutes the chief meansfor licensing authorities to influence driver be-havior.

394 5

License SanctionsLicense sanctions received an enthusiastic en-

dorsement from hearing participants. JudgeChristopher Foley of the Milwaukee Children'sCourt declared that license sanctions have had atremendous deterrent effect on the drinking anddriving behavior of young people in his jurisdic-tion, while Massachusetts Secretary of PublicSafety Charles Barry stated that license sanc-tions have had more impact on the teenagedrinking and driving problem than any othersingle measure. Speaking in favor of administra-tive revocation, Maine Highway Safety Commis-sioner Albert Godfrey argued that revocation isboth more appropriate than a jail sentence andmore effective in our affluent society than afine. Its effectiveness as a deterrent is due tothe fact that, among youth, licenses um valuedfor their symbolic importance as a sign of inde-pendence as well as for their practical utility.

Proponents of license sanctions declared thatsuspensions or revocations have a number ofpotential effects. They deter drinking and driv-ing by individuals who fear the loss of theirlicense; they remove convicted offenders fromthe roads; and they send a message that drink-ing and driving is intolerable and that viola-tions will result in a serious penalty.

The hearings revealed that at least six differ-ent types of youth offenses are subject to pun-ishment involving license sanctions.

1. First and most commonly, license revoca-tion is used to punish DWI offenses. En-couragingly, states are beginning to dif-ferentiate between the impairment levelfor youth and the legal intoxication levelfor adults. In North Carolina, youthunder 18 are subject to a zero Blood Al-cohol Content (BAC), and the penalty forDWI offenders is license suspension for45 days or until the offender's 18th birth-day, whiche ler is longer. Similarly, Wis-consin's "Not a Drop Law" establishes azero BAC for anyone under 19, while inMaine a .02 BAC exists for anyone under21. Throughout the hearings, witnessesemphasized the importance of establish-ing lower BAC levels for youth as a de-terrent to drinking and driving.

2. In some states the mere possession ofalcohol by a minor, even when the youthis not driving, is punishable by licensesuspension. Possession or consumption ofalcohol by youths under 18 in Wisconsinis subject to a 90-day suspension for the

first offense, while in North Carolina thepenalty is a one year suspension.

3. Furthermore, in North Carolina, the at-tempt to purchase or abetting someoneelse in pui,,hasing results in a one yearlicense revocation.

4. Oregon youth age 13-18 who are convict-ed of any offense involving the posses-sion of a ceittrolled substance may losetheir license for , ne year or until theyare 17, whichever is longer.

5. The possession or use of a fake ID ispenalized by suspension in several states.

6. In New York, any serious motor vehicleoffense may be punishable by the loss oflicense for probationary license holders.Six-month probationary licenses areissues to all new licensees, not justyouth, in New York.

While testifiers applauded the deterrent effectof license sanctions, they pointed to two seriousproblems associated with revocations. First, thepunishment may be perceived by law enforce-ment officers as too harsh and thus, paradox-ically, contribute to greater non-enforcement ofdrinking and driving laws. Second, license revo-cation may not keep convicted offenders off theroads, for statistics indicate that a large numberof youth drive without licenses.

The Problem of Non-enforcementTestifiers cited both Oregon and New Mexico

as examples of states where licensing sanctionshave created a disincentive for enforcement. InOregon, the disincentive is apparently linked toinsurance rate increases. According to LindaTodd, a former county DUI coordinator, commu-nities have failed to enforce underage drinkinglaws because the conviction of youths for non-driving offenses such as possession of alcoholhas led insurance companies to raise familyauto insurance premiums. In New Mexico, thelack of enforcement seems to result from theattitude of police. According to Mary AnnHughes of the New Mexico Department ofPublic Safety, many law enforcement officialsstill consider adolescent drinking a part of grow-ing up and believe that youthful violations ofdrinking and driving laws should not be severe-ly punished. Consequently, the state's adminis-trative revocation law has been, in Hughes'words, "a dismal failure for drivers under theage of 18." While New Mexico police de nothesitate to enforce the law for adult violators,

404 6

they are not arresting youth for driving whileimpaired but prefer instead to bring youngpeople home or release them to their parents.

Recognizing that licensing sanctions aremeaningless as long as police and judges fait toenforce the law, testifiers offered two recom-mendations. First, as Judge Foley stated, lawenforcement officials must be informed thatnon-enforcement of the law sends the wrongmessage to youth. The discretion to not punishan offender lies with the judge, not the arrest-ing officer. Second, innovative adjudicationmeasures such as diversion programs or commu-nity service sentences need to be devised to givejudges a sentencing option in cases where theybelieve the full penalty is too severe. As long asjudges and police perceive the sentence as dis-proportionate to the offense, sentencing and en-forcement may be compromised.

The Problem of Unlicensed Drivers

License sanctions are also being underminedby youth who continue to drive after their li-censes have been revoked. The problem ofyoung unlicensed drivers is alarming. NewMexico statistics reveal that 23% of the youthinvolved in fatal DWI accidents are unlicensed,while 16% of the youth arrested for DWI areunlicensed. One testifier from North Carolinaestimated that 30-50% of the people under li-cense suspension or revocation continue todrive. The implications of these statistics areclear. Administrative revocation, as Mary AnnHughes noted, is not an effective deterrent for alarge percentage of drivers. To combat the prob-lem of unlicensed adolescent drivers, testifierssuggested that courts impose stiff penalties forthose caught driving under revocation and con-sider assessing penalties against the parents ofyouth who drive after their licenses have beenrevoked.

As noted at the beginning of this section, au-thorities possess four means of using the powerof licensing to effect the problem of youth im-paired driving. Find, they can mandate the in-clusion of information on alcohol impairment indriver education courses and require youth tocomplete a driver education course before re-ceiving a license. Second, they can levy licensesanctions against youth who violate drinking ordriving laws. These two means have been dis-cussed. The third means at the disposal of au-thorities involves the relicensing of youth whoselicenses have been revoked.

Re licensingIn some states, relicensing is used by authori-

ties to encourage offenders to participate in edu-cational or evaluative programs. In Maine, forinstance, any youth under age 21 caught operat-ing a motor vehicle with BAC level over .02 issubject to a one-year license suspension. Howev-er, if the offender completes a ten-hour coursedesigned to screen and educate youth on thehazards of drinking and driving, the Secretaryof State may restore the offender's license aftersix months. A similar program exists in NewYork, where eligible motorists, usually first-time offenders, are invited to enroll in an alco-hol education and screening program. Condi-tional licenses are issued to program partici-pants enabling them to drive to the programan3 to work or school. The educational courseconsists of 16 hours of classroom instructiontaught by a team with expertise in traffic safetyand alcoholism. The course must be completedbefore the offender qualifies for relicensing.Those referred for treatment of alcohol prob-lems must also complete the treatment programbefore relicensing is approved.

In discussing relicensing, testifiers noted thata problem may exist in ensuring that offenderssatisfy the requirements or conditions of reli-censing. The state of Oregon encountered thisproblem and took steps to overcome it. InOregon, for instance, hardship licenses aregranted to DWI offenders on condition that theoffenders do not drink and drive. To ensure thatoffenders adhere to this condition, licensing au-thorities have experimented with ignition inter-lock devices that are installed on the cars ofoffenders. Before starting the car, the drivermust blow an alcohol-free air sample into abreath tester that is connected to the car igni-tion. If the breath tester detects any trace ofalcohol, the device prevents the key from start-ing the car. State officials in Oregon also discov-ered that they had a problem with DUI offend-ers failing to complete the treatment programsto which judges assigned them. To ensure thatan offender completed the treatment programbefore being relicensed, the Oregon Departmentof Motor Vehicles devised a form that was sup-plied to all approved treatment centers. When aDWI offender completes a treatment program,the center sends the form to the DMV and theinformation is entered into the department'scomputer records. Before the DMV can rein-state a license, its records must show that theoffender completed the assigned treatment pro-gram.

41 4 7

Combatting Fraudulent ID'sIn addition to driver education courses, li-

cense sanctions and relicensing conditions, au-thorities possess a fourth means of affecting theincidence of youth impaired driving. They cantake steps to ensure that the licenses they issueare not misused or fraudulently obtained.

License abuse is a common problem. To pre-vent youths from altering the birth date on li-censes or using the license of an older friend orsibling to buy alcohol, testifiers offered two rec-ommendations: distinctively code the licenses ofdrivers under 21 and include a profile photo-graph of the licensee on the license.

Several states reported problems with under-age youth fraudulently obtaining driver licensesusing the birth certificate of an older sibling orfriend. To combat this problem, testifiers recom-

mended three measures. First, they urged DMVauthorities to acknowledge the seriousness ofthe problem and to place less emphasis on quickturnaround time and the rapid issuance of li-censes and more emphasis on stopping attemptsby youth to obtain licenses fraudulently.Second, they recommended that department ofmotor vehicle personnel be trained to recognizethe ruses youth commonly employ. And third,they supported the establishment of a central-ized licensing system in each state. With eachlicensee's photograph on record in a centralcomputer, it would be easier for DMV personnelto catch youth who attempt to obtain a licenseusing another person's name. By increasing ef-forts to prevent the misuse of licenses by youth,state motor vehicle departments can contributeto reducing the ease with which young peoplevotain alcohol.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONSLicensing

Administrative per se laws should be enacted to ensure immediate and certainlicense suspensions for youthful impaired driving offenses.

* Possession of alcohol by an underage youth should be punishable by licensesanctions.

States should impose licensing sanctions for underage impaired driving offenseswhich re.ognize the additional violation of state minimum drinking age laws.

Sufficient steps should be taken to guarantee that parents and young people areaware of drinking and impaired driving laws and sanctions for their violation.

License suspensions for juvenile as well as adult offenders should be reported tothe state driver licensing agency and considered when assessing penalties for anysubsequent violations.Juveniles whose licenses have been suspended should have to secure juvenilecourt permission to have their licenses reinstated.

* The manufacture or possession of fraudulent licenses should be outlawedandviewed as serious offenses.

Use of fraudulent licenses should result in strict sanctions involving licensesuspensions for an extended period of time.

State motor vehicle departments should train licensing personnel to recognizefraudulent license applications.

States should cooperate in the development of a national uniform driver license.' States should establish a provisional license for young beginner drivers.

Provisional licenses should be withdrawn for any impaired driving conviction orimplied consent refusal for a period not less than the length of revocation to whichfull licenses are subject.Provisional licenses should be distinguishable from adult licenses by the use of aside profile photograph, a different color or some other distinctive mark.An alcohol/drug module should be incorporated into driver education courses.

Juveniles who are new licensees should appear in juvenile court with their parentsto receive licenses and instruction on driving laws, sanctions and responsibilitiesfrom a judge.

Strict sanctions should exist for those who drive without a license, with particularlysevere sanctions for driving with a suspended or revoked license. Sanctions couldinclude insurance rate increases or surcharges and vehicle impoundment.Parents whose underage (thildren drive with a suspended or revoked license shouldbe held liable.

4 S

43

VII. AdjudicationThe issue of adjudication provides an excel-

lent example of the interdependence of im-paired driving countermeasures. As the hear-ings revealed, perceptions about the adjudica-tory system greatly influence the success of theentire effort to counter impaired driving. Asure, consistent and immediate judicial responseis absolutely imperative. Without effective adju-dication, attempts to formulate an integratedstrategy stand little chance of success.

A successful adjudicatory process has threeeffects:

First, it teaches youth that drinking and driv-ing is a serious violation of the law and, at thesame time, often affords youth with substanceabuse problems their first chance for treatmentand professional counseling.

Second, it encourages police enforcement ofdrinking and driving laws. As law enforcementofficials themselves testified, police officers willnot expend the time and effort to arrest youthfor impaired driving offenses if, in their experi-ence, they find that little or nothing happens tooffenders in the courts.

Third, an effective judicial response promotesparental involvement. At times, this involve-ment may be mandatory, as when the courtorders parents to attend educational or treat-ment programs with their child. At other times,the involvement may be voluntary. Penaltiessuch as fines, insurance surcharges, and auto-mobile impoundment may induce parents toconfront their child's illegal drinking and take amore active interest in their child's behavior.

A review of the testimony on adjudication re-veals that the commentary may be subdividedinto three broad categories. First, testifiers cas-cussed preliminary subjects such as the role ofjudges, the proper jurisdiction for juvenile im-paired driving offenses, and the usefulness ofpre-adjudicatory diversion programs. Second,testifiers offered opinions about the sentencesthat ought to be imposed for youthful DWI con-victions. And third, testifiers enumerated theproblems most frequently encountered in adju-dicating young offenders.

The first category of testimony concerned ad-judicatory issues that arise before the sentenc-ing of youthful DWI offenders takes place.Within this category, discussion focused onthree major themes:

1) the role of judges and the need for judi-cial education

2) the jurisdiction of juvenile courts and thequestion of whether DWI offenders underage 18 should be tried as adults

3) the appropriateness of pre-adjudicatorydiversion programs.

Judicial EducationExtensive testimony was presented about the

need to educate judges in view of the uniqueopportunity informed judges have to exercisecommunity leadership. In general, testifiersagreed that judges lacked sufficient informationabout the problem of alcohol use among youth.As Judge Devine pointed out, judges usually gostraight from practicing law to the bench andconsequently do not have a sufficient knowledgeof the community resources available to treatyoung people with alcohol problems. Accordingto Judge Heckemeyer, "We as a society are nottraining our judges. There's no manual; there'sno training program. We [judges] don't evenknow what it is we're luoking at the first daywe're on the bench."

Judge Willett concurred. Believe it or not, hesaid, there are still some judges who do notbelieve the underage use of alcohol is a prob-lem. To Willett, this suggested a need for in-struction: "I am talking about teaching the judi-ciary that this problem is in each of their re-spective jurisdictions. It's probably in each oftheir homes." Judges need to be able to recog-nize substance abuse and know when and howto intervene. The key, Willett concluded, is edu-cationeducation for the judiciary and the judi-cial support staff.

The problem of inadequate training is com-pounded by the perception that some judgeshave of their judicial responsibilities. As JudgeHeckemeyer noted, judges are not a uniformgroup. There are, he maintained, three kinds ofjudges: those who are activists and become in-volved in community efforts to halt youth im-paired driving; those who recognize their re-sponsibility but do not become personally in-volved; and those who believe that the E' 'le roleof the judiciary is to sentence offenders. It is thelast category of judges who are most in need of

4o

education and the people best equipped to trainthem are other judges, according to Hecke-meyer.

Judicial LeadershipThe leadership opportunities afforded an

active judge extend well beyond the courtroom.Throughout the hearings, witnesses cited exam-ples of judges who used the:r judicial conveningpower to call together law enforcement officials,school administrators and civic leaders to for-mulate strategies for combatting youth im-paired driving. Many of the testifiers empha-sized that judges have both an opportunity anda professional obligation to become involved incommunity programs. "The judge has got to bea catalyst in the community for change," JudgeDevine declared. His counterpart in Ironton,Ohio, Judge Boll, concurred: "I believe the judgein the courtroom has a duty beyond the individ-ual juvenile who appears in the courtroom. Ifeel he or she must have a plan to stop drinkingand driving entirely along with a program foreach individual offender." For a judge whotakes this duty seriously, a tremendous opportu-nity exists to channel community opposition toyouth impaired driving into programs thattranslate sentiment into action.

The Jurisdictional DebateThe need for judicial education and judicial

participation in community prosrrams constitut-ed the first of three preliminary themes. Thesecond theme concerned the question of howjuvenile DWI offenders should be handled in theadjudicatory process. Testimony on this issuerevealed a division of opinion. While some testi-fiers argued that driving is an adult responsibil-ity and that driving offenses ought to be adjudi-cated in adult courts, others maintained thatjurisdiction over juvenile DWI offenders shouldremain with the juvenile courts.

Those who favored assigning juvenile offend-ers to adult courts ',served that driving is anadult responsibility. When youth choose toassume this responsibility, they ask to be treat-ed as adults. Consequently, they ought to beheld accountable for their actions and subject tothe same penalties as adult offenders. Testimo-ny was presented from New Jersey, a state thatdoes adjudicate juvenile offenders as adults. Ac-cording to William Hayes, Director of the NewJersey Office of Highway Safety, the key to hisstate's success with this procedure lies in thestatus of DWI offenses. In New Jersey, DWIviolations are considered motor vehicle viola-

46

tions rather than criminal offenses; consequent-ly they do not necessitate criminal court proce-dures such as pretrial intervention, jury trials,and referral of youths under 18 to juvenilecourts. By applying the law equally and consist-ently to all offenders, including juveniles, NewJersey has experienced notable success in lower-ing the incidence of youth impaired driving,Hayes declared.

While the reduction of impaired driving fa-talities in New Jersey speaks for the success ofthat state's approach, most testifiers maintainedthat separate adjudicatory procedures ought toexist for youth. Juvenile Court Judge AndyDevine was among those who urged that youthunder age 18 who are arrested for impaireddriving violations should be tried in juvenilecourts. "What I would like to see you do," saidDevine, "that probably would help as much asanything, is to begin to distinguish betweenadults and juveniles. In an adult court, thejudge deals with an individual. But in a juvenilecourt, you are able to deal not only with thechild who has a problem but with the wholefamily. And often a parent or sibling may alsohave a problem In the juvenile court you havejurisdiction over all those people. So you can notonly mandate punishment or education; youhave the opportunity to deal with the most im-portant resource in correcting the behavior ofyouthsthe parents."

For lesser traffic offenses, alternatives exist toadjudicating youth in either an adult or a juve-nile court. In Texas, for instance, an innovativeprogram known as the Teen Court has beenestablished to adjudicate youth guilty of minordriving violations. Used to sentence juvenile of-fenders, the Teen Court employs youth as attor-neys, bailiffs and juries. Only the judge is anadult. The philosophy underlying the TeenCourt rests on the observation that young of-fenders are often encouraged to break the lawby their peers. If peer pressure can encouragedeviant behavior, perhaps it can also be used todiscourage it. According to Teen Court coordina-tor Natalie Rothstein, "Every community needsto find a way to let its young people hear fromtheir peers that drinking and driving and drugusage . . . is not cool." A program like the TeenCourt provides a forum in which young offend-ers can learn of their peers' disapproval of theirillegal behavior.

Pre-adjudication DiversionThe third theme, and also a theme that pro-

voked a difference of opinion, concerned pre-

adjudication diversion programs. In general, tes-tifiers expressed dissatisfaction with pre-adjudi-cation diversion programs. Most witnesses urgedjudges not to allow youth to opt for an alterna-tive form of punishment instead of being triedin court for a DWI violation Judge Foley spokefor many when he said that, as a general rule,judges are better off imposing the sanctions au-thorized by law rather than permitting youthwho have been arrested to perform some type ofcompensatory service, such as working in a hos-pital. One of the major problems with diversionprograms, Foley noted, is that no record of adriving offense appears on the motor vehiclerecord of the offender, and therefore it becomesdifficult to track young multiple offenders.

One type of pre-adjudicatory diversion pro-gram did receive support, however. DistrictCourt Judge James Kizer of Kings County,Washington, testified in favor of diversion pro-grams that allow offenders to enter a treatmentprogram in exchange for deferred prosecution.Kizer cited five reasons for supporting such pro-grams. First, one cannot guarantee that thosewho are guilty of DWI offences will be convict-ed, and therefore there is no guarantee thatarrested drivers in need of treatment will re-ceive it. Second, even if offenders are convicted,the conviction often occurs only after a longcourt case, during which time offenders can con-tinue to drive. Third, those who opt for treat-ment, which in Washington lasts for a mini-mum of two years, benefit from a sense of vol-untary entry into the program thereby enablingthe treatment to break through the denial stagemore quickly. Fourth, defense attorneys becomean advocate for treatment and consequentlyseek fewer delays, which relieves pressure onthe courts and, at the same time, enables of-fenders to receive treatment quickly. And fifth,in Judge Kizer's experience, those who receivetreatment through deferred prosecution have amuch lower recidivism rate than those who areconvicted and receive treatment as part of theirsentence.

SentencingHaving discussed the subject of pre-adjudica-

tory diversion, testifiers turned their attentionto the subject of sentencing. The proposals forsentences differed in their details, but nearly allreflected a broad consensus that the adjudica-tory response to impaired driving must gobeyond mere punishment. To change the behav-ior of youth who commit alcohol-related of-fenses, sentences must combine three elements:

47

punishment, education and treatment. Each ofthese three elements received extensive com-ment.

The need for sentences to include strict pun-ishment emerged as a dominant theme duringthe hearings. In general, testifiers supportedstrong sanctions, believing they would encour-age young people to take the problem of drink-ing and driving seriously. Repeatedly, witnessesstated that youth must be taught that actionshave consequences and that the law cannot beviolated without penalty. One witness, however,Juvenile Court Judge Dennis Boll, dissented, de-claring that while he believes punishment has areal place in juvenile justice, it does not workfor DWI offenders in his area. The problem, Bollexplained, is that youth in his district perceiveanti-impaired driving laws as rules intended tokeep them from having fun, rather than as safe-guards to keep them from injuring themselvesand others. The solution therefore, lies inchanging the attitude of young people towarddrinking and driving. As Boll noted: "Youthfuloffenders must see how the results of theirdrinking and driving have caused them realproblems. . . . I feel that doing this is my majorresponsibility as a juvenile judge in these cases.Make them see that they are hurt by the drink-ing and driving rather than being hurt onlybecause they were caught." Boll's response tothe problem of youth impaired driving and hispreference fin instruction rather than punish-ment leads to the second essential component ofsentencingeducation.

In sentencing youthful offenders, educationmust be combined with punishment; neithereducation nor punishment is sufficient by itself.To use the favored formula of Judge Devine,"consequences plus education equals responsibil-ity." Education may take a variety of forms.Juvenile Court Judge Romae Powell requiresjuvenile offenders to do research into the effectsof alcohol on the health of young people be-cause, in her words, "Some young people justdon't know the extent to which they are ruiningtheir lives by using alcohol and drugs." Asecond form of education, employed in Washing-ton courts, utilizes an innovative Victims' Panelto instruct youth about the dangers and tragicresults of drinking and driving.

Other judges reported using educational pro-grams and presentations to compel young of-fenders and their families to take the time toreflect on what they are doing when they driveimpaired. Judge Boll, for instance, described a48-hour weekend program that he established

S2

for young DWI offenders in his jurisdiction. Theprogram begins with two movies which describehow impaired driving hurts the offender as wellas society. Afterwards, the attendees participatein group discussions which focus on three topics:1) the physiological aspects of alcohol and theeffect of alcohol and other drugs on driving; 2)the state's DWI laws; and 3) the stages andsymptoms of chemical dependency. The thirdtopic is particularly important, according toBoll, because it encourages participants to judgetheir state of dependency for themselves. AsBoll noted, it is much more effective for youngpersons to arrive at the conclusion that they areadvancing toward dependency rather than for adoctor or counselor to make that assessment.This subject of assessment leads to the thirdcomponent of sentencing: evaluation and treat-ment.

The juvenile justice system in our country is atwo-pronged system. Juvenile court judges firstmust confront the legal aspects of adjudicationand determine the guilt or innocence of an of-fender. Once that is resolved, judges changeroles and become social workers, psychologistsand parents. In cases of youthful impaired driv-ing, this second dimension of the judge's role iscritically important. Testifiers repeatedly de-clared that the court's involvement must be de-signed to detect the alcohol problems of youngoffenders and respond with evaluation andtreatment. At minimum, this recommendationrequires two measures. First, all DWI offendersshould be required to submit to an alcohol eval-uation, preferably prior to sentencing. Second,sentences should include provisions for treat-ment, with the level of treatment dependent onthe severity of the substance abuse problem.

Successful adjudication involves punishment,education and treatment. During the hearings,several adjudicatory programs were cited thatcombine all three components. Juvenile DWI of-fenders appearing in the court of Judge Devineare punished by a one-year loss of license andsentenced to three days in a detention center.Together with their family, they are required toattend a 15-hour Comprehensive AwarenessProgram that uses medical experts and law en-forcement officials to teach the dangers ofdrinking and driving. All offenders assigned tothe program are evaluated for substance abuseproblems and assigned to treatment if a prob-lem is discovered.

A different comprehensive program was es-tablished by Judge Boll. Convicted DWI juvenileoffenders in Boll's court are sentenced to spenda weekend at a special school. There, convicted

offenders are provided instruction about drink-ing and driving, listen to a speaker from Alco-holics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, re-ceive individual counseling, and undergo evalua-tion. Youth who are assessed as having a risk ofchemical dependency are required to obtaintreatment. With the approval of their parentsor guardians, youth then are sentenced to workon a community farm as wage laborers to payoff their fines and court costs.

Problems with Adjudication ProceduresIn the course of the hearings, testifiers enu-

merated five major problems encountered in ad-judicating juvenile offenders:

1) the pressure to plea bargain in juvenileDWI cases;

2) the ineffectiveness of diversion pro-grams;

3) the lack of statutory guidelines in sen-tencing juveniles;

4) the confidentiality of records for offend-ers who are adjudicated in juvenilecourts;

5) the high rate of recidivism among youngdrivers.

1. Plea Bargaining. The first problem faced byprosecutors in adjudicating young offenders con-cerns plea bargaining. The problem arises fromthe fact that the juvenile court system is oftenoverloaded. Consequently, prosecutors are underconsiderable pressure to find alternatives to theprocess. Given that DWI offenses may be consid-ered a low priority when compared with violentand property crimes, a tendency arises to pleabargain: DWI charges are often downgraded topossession of alcohol, or charges are dismissed ifan offender agrees to participate in a diversionprogram. Testifiers decried such plea bargain-ing. Not only does it send youth the mixed mes-sage that impaired driving violations are insig-nificant, it also substitutes meaningful sanctionssuch as license suspension and mandatory eval-uation for comparatively trivial punishments.

2. Diversion Programs. When frequent pleabargaining occurs, it becomes even more impor-tant to have effective diversionary programs inplace. Unfortunately diversion programs are notalways taken seriously by young offenders.Young offenders themselves testified that theyopted for diversion because it was an easy wayto evade the penalties prescribed by law. Con-cerned about the merit of diversion programs,

48 5

Oregon state senator Rod Monroe recommendedfour guidelines to which diversion programsshould adhere: 1) driving privileges should besuspended pending successful completion of theprogram; 2) an initial substance abuse evalua-tion should be mandatory and should lead toplacement in an appropriate treatment programif evidence exists of a problem; 3) parentsshould be required to participate in the programwith their child; and 4) any youth who violatesthe terms of the diversion program should besubject to the full penalties imposed upon con-victed DWI offenders.

3. Statutory Guidelines. In addition to pleabargaining and ineffective diversion programs,testifiers complained of a lack of statutoryguidelines in sentencing juvenile offenders. InIowa, according to Kay Chopard, the law estab-lishes minimum penalties for adults but nevermentions the subject of sanctions for juvenileoffenders. Consequently, penalties for youthunder 18 depend entirely on th,, discretion ofthe judge. This creates two problems. First, pen-alties vary considerably from one Iowa jurisdic-tion to another; and second, Iowa educators en-gaged in instructing youth in the dangers ofdrinking and driving have no penalties to whichthey can point and state to youth that this iswhat will happen if you are caught driving im-paired.

4. Confidentiality. The fourth problem associ-ated with adjudicating juvenile offenders con-cerns the inaccessibility of juvenile courtrecords. In many states, juvenile court proceed-ings are not considered convictions and there-fore do not appear on the offender's record. In

49

other states, the confidentiality of juvenile courtproceedings results in the juvenile offender'srecord being wiped clean upon reaching age 18.In both cases, efforts to track multiple offendersare frustrated. Since driving is an adult respon-sibility and the status of driving violationssomewhat different than other offenses commit-ted by juveniles, testifiers recommended that ju-venile DWI convictions be reported to the de-partment of motor vehicles and included on thedriver's permanent record.

5. Recidivism. The fifth problem concerns thehigh rate of recidivism exhibited by young driv-ers. Testifiers from several states cited statisticsindicating that youth under the age of 21 have ahigher rate of recidivism than drivers in otherage groups. According to Judge Montelione, a10-year study in Cook County, Illinois, revealedthat the recidivism rate for the entire DUI of-fender population was 9.1%, while the recidi-vism rate for offenders under the age of 21 wasmore than 14%. Significantly greater recidivismrates for youth were also reported in Texas,where recent work by the Texas CommissionAgainst Alcohol and Drug Abuse found that theyounger an individual is at the time of firstarrest the more likely the individual is to berearrested for DWI within any given period oftime.

In general, testifiers believed that the key toreducing the recidivism rate among youth liesin improving and expanding education andtreatment programs for young offenders. Theirspecific recommendations on how to improvethese programs are the subject of the followingchapter on supervision.

;i 4

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONSAdjudication

' Juvenile courts should be assigned jurisdiction over juvenile impaired drivingviolations.

States need to establish statutory sentencing guidelines for cases involvingjuvenile DWI offenders.

DWI convictions for impaired driving by juveniles should be reported to the statedepartment of motor vehicles and included on the driver's permanent record.

' Courts should work closely -iith police to remove obstacles to the enforcement ofdrinking and impaired drix.ug laws for youths and to provide feedback to police onsentencing.

' Courts should require the involvement of parents in the adjudication, education,and treatment of underage drinking and impaired driving offenders.

' Pre-conviction diversions for underage impaired driving offenses should not be used.A finding on the charge should be rendered, and participation in education ortreatment programs should then become a condition of sentencing.

' Plea-bargaining and downgrading of DWI offenses should not be permitted.' Innovative adjudicatory processes such as the teen court should be considered for

lesser traffic offenses.

' Minimum disposition for underage impaired driving violations should include amandatory loss of license for 180 days for first offenders and a mandatory substanceabuse evaluation that is specifically designed for youths.

Other sanctions could include:1) fines and restitution2) education arid treatment when appropriate3) community service4) exposure to hospital emergency rooms, shock trauma units and victim panels.

' Training should be provided for judges and court personnel who handle youthfuldrinking and impaired driving offenses.

' Juvenile court judges should take a leadership role in community activitiesdesigned to prevent substance abuse and impaired driving by youths. Judges shouldactively communicate laws, sanctions and existing problems to schools andcommunities.

51 t :0 ,

VIII. SupervisionThe topic of supervision encompasses all post-

adjudicatory measures ordered by the court forconvicted offenders. For youths guilty of im-paired driving, these measures primarily consistof educational and treatment programs. Theprevious chapter related the testifiers' convic-tion that sentences for youthful offenders mustinclude three components: punishment, educa-tion and treatment. This chapter will review therequirements set forth by testifiers for effectiveeducation and treatment programs.

In discussing the requirements of effectiveeducation and treatment programs, testifiers of-fered two sets of recommendations. The first setconcerned young offenders and their parentsand focused on what should be required ofthem. Four recommendations were proposed:

1) parents of offenders must be involved inpost-adjudicatory programs;

2) offenders receiving treatment for sub-stance abuse problems must be requiredto abstain from substance use;

3) treatment patients should be subject torandom drug and alcohol tests;

4) treatment patients should be obliged toreport to a judge upon completion oftheir program.

The second set of recommendations concernedthe programmatic features which testifiers be-lieved to be necessary for the success of anytreatment program. Again four recommenda-tions were offered:

1) treatment programs must be specificallydesigned for youth;

2) well-established lines of communicationmust exist between the courts and treat-ment personnel;

3) treatment programs need to include aspecial monitoring unit to superviseyouth with severe substance abuse prob-lems;

4) effectiveness of treatment programsneeds constant evaluation.

Parental InvolvementIn the first set of recommendations testifiers

offered four requirements for participants inpost-adjudicatory programs. The first of these

_-..11111e .-_

1411 IIIrequirements concerned parental involvement.Throughout the hearings, testifiers recalled thecrucial importance of parental participation ineducation and treatment programs. "Never justdeal with the hild," Judge Devine declared. "Itdoes not work." Neither the courts nor thepolice have the resources to ensure that youngpeople adhere to the requirements of treatmentprograms; only parents are in a position to mon-itor the daily behavior of their children andprovide them with the support and disciplineneeded to overcome substance abuse problem."The only way that I know that we're going toget on top of this thing," said Devine, "is if weget the parents involved."

Parental involvement is important not onlybecause parents can help their children over-come substance abuse problems but because pa-rental denial of a problem undermines the po-tential effectiveness of treatment. Both recover-ing alcoholics and treatment personnel notedthis point. Brian Cooper, a youth whose alcoholproblem was recognized by a school substanceabuse specialist, spoke of how his parentsdenied that he had a problem and told schoolcounselors that he could work through his diffi-culties without treatment. David Moore, direc-tor of Olympic Counseling Services, relatedsimilar responses from the parents of young al-coholics in need of treatment. "I'll have aparent come into my office in an evaluationconference," Moore stated, "and I will be literal-ly describing how their son or daughter is dyingin front of them. And what that parent will sayis, Tut I used to drink like that when I was ateenager. I got blasted like that when I was ateenager. I still do once in a while. What's thebig deal? Why send him to treatment?' That isnot a bad parent. That is a parent who has beena substance abuser, who maybe now is no longera substance abuser, but whose thinking is sodisordered that they can't see when somebodyright in front of them in their own home isdying."

Recognizing the importance of parental in-volvement, testifiers complained that notenough was being done to induce parents toparticipate in adjudicatory proceedings andpost-adjudicatory programs. Kay Chopard,among others, noted that the issue of parental

53

5 6

involvement has not been adequately addressed:"What I hear from prosecutors around the stateis that they're really feeling that they need toinvolve parents, that it's really got to start withthem, and that the state, at this point, has nottaken any kind of lead or come up with anykind of solution about how to do that."

At the Atlanta hearing, Judge Romae Powellproposed a means of stimulating parental in-volvement. She suggested that the courts takethe lead and develop courses for parents. Thesecourses, she said, could teach parents to recog-nize the signs of substance abuse, inform themof the importance of role modeling, and providethem with good parenting skills.

Abstinence

The second recommendation was that absti-nence must be required for those in treatmentprograms. The problem, said treatment special-ists, is that the courts do not always make itclear to youths that substance use will not betolerated while an offender undergoes treat-ment. Tom Murphy of the Mainstream YouthProgram in Oregon singled out this problem:

I think the frustration that we run intoworking with diversion laws is that in theState of Oregon abstinence is not viewed asa requirement of the diversion policies. . . .

We, as a treatment community, do not feelthat it is beneficial for anyone to be in treat-ment unless they remain clean. Yet clientsoften will sign up for diversion, thinkingthat it's simply a way out of a DUI ticketand not realizing the effort that they aregoing to have to put forth to stay clean fromalcohol and drugs."The courts, Murphy concluded, have a duty to

inform offenders who opt for diversion that theywill be expected to remain clean and that thosewho do not adhere to this requirement inviteextended sentences.

The importance of abstinence was under-scored by the testimony of a young recoveringalcoholic. By his own admission, he entered thetreatment program because it seemed the easierroute. Being forced to abstain provided himwith the chF -e to step back and examine hisown behavior. iiven this opportunity, he real-ized that he had a drinking problem and, conse-quently, his attitude toward the treatment pro-gram changed. Instead of seeing it as a joke, asan easy alternative to punishment, he came toview it as a means of helping him overcome hisproblem.

54

Drug and Alcohol ScreeningThe need for abstinence in treatment pro-

grams led testifiers to make a third recommen-dation. Random screening for alcohol and otherdrugs should be conducted at the discretion ofprobation officers or court staff. Testimony washeard from treatment officials whose programsroutinely employ alcohol and drug testing. TomMurphy of the Mainstream Youth Program re-lated how his program handles juvenile offend-ers who test positive for alcohol or other druguse. According to Murphy, any offender as-signed by a court to his program for treatmentmust abstain from alcohol. Urinalysis is used totest clients. If a client tests positive for sub-stance use, the treatment begins anew. For in-stance, if a youth is referred to treatment fortwo months and in the seventh week tests posi-tive for alcohol, then the youth is required tostart over again and remain clean for anothertwo months before the treatment is consideredcomplete. This provision emphasizes the serious--.ess of the abstinence requirement and leadsmany offenders to remain in treatment for aperiod of time far longer than their originalsentence.

Treatment TerminationLike alcohol and drug testing, the fourth rec-

ommendation of this section was also promptedby a desire to ensure that juvenile offenderscomply with court orders. Judge Montelioneproposed that other states adopt Illinois' proce-dure of requiring DWI offenders to appearIsf.fore their sentencing judge for a formal termi-nation of their treatment. This procedure hastwo effects. It emphasizes at the outset that theoffender will have to take the post-adjudicatoryprogram seriously and complete it satisfactorily,and it provides a means for judges to determinethat the sentences they impose are completed.

The four proposed supervision rc.ommenda-tions concerned young offenders and their par-ents and focused on what should be required ofparticipants in post-adjudicatory treatment pro-grams. In addition to these four recommenda-tions, testifiers offered a second set of recom-mendations dealing with the treatment itselfand the programmatic elements necessary foreffectively addressing the substance abuse prob-lems of young offenders.

Age-specific ProgramsThe first programmatic recommendation con-

cerned the need to establish separate treatment

cif

programs for adults and juveniles. Two prob-lems were commonly cited in treatment pro-grams that fail to distinguish between these twogroups. First, treatment programs for adultspromote a message of responsible drinking thatis inappropriate for youths under age 21. Testifi-ers from Georgia and Ohio expressed similardismay that treatment programs in their statesmade no effort to teach young offenders that itis irresponsible for underage youths to drink.Second, adult education and treatment pro-grams may not take into consideration thelearning disabilities of some young people andtheir possible sensitivity when discussing cer-tain subjects. For this reason, Judge Montelionerecommended that special remedial educationcourses be designed for those youthful offenderswho proceed at a slower pace than is anticipat-ed for the normal adult remedial education pro-gram. Special physiological and developmentalconcerns also should be addressed in a distinctyouth guidance track that might appear inap-propriate or embarrassing if discussed in a non-age-specific group.

Good CommunicationThe second recommendation to emerge from

the testimony concerned the indispensability ofcommunication between the judiciary and thetreatment community. Testifiers cited two waysin which close interaction and good communica-tion benefits the post-adjudicatory process. First,judges can use their convening authority to calltogether treatment professionals to establishuniform standards and procedures for adjudica-tory programs or to develop solutions to prob-lems in existing juvenile treatment programs.Second, when a court-referred offender does notadhere to the recommendations of the treat-ment facility, it may be necessary to send the

55

offender back to the courts for a reprimand.Because treatment centers rely on the courts toenforce their requirements, it is necessary forgood communication to exist between the twoinstitutions. Only an integrated network ofcourt officials, treatment personnel and policecan ensure that offenders complete the pre-scribed treatment.

MonitoringThe third recommendation called for the es-

tablishment of a special monitoring unit to su-pervise youths with severe alcohol problems.Building upon the idea of an integrated networkof officials involved in post- adjudicatory super-vision, Judge Montelione stated that communi-ties should establish an intensive monitoringunit for high-risk DWI offenders. The functionsof this unit would include meeting frequentlywith an offender, visiting the offender's family,monitoring the offender's participation in reme-dial education or intervention programs, and re-porting to the court on the offender's progress.

EvaluationThe fourth and final recommendation con-

cerned the need to evaluate treatment programsto determine which programs work. As one tes-tifier noted, the traditional and accepted educa-tion and treatment programs currently beingemployed by the criminal justice system havenot been entirely effective in combatting theproblem of youth impaired driving. The highrate of recidivism an- ng young offenders under-scores this fact. Therefore, it appears incumbentupon those engaged in post-adjudicatory pro-grams to design an evaluative instrument and aresearch program which can be used to deter-mine which courses of intervention are mosteffective in reducing youthful impaired driving.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONSSupervision' Treatment programs must be specifically designed for youth.

' Well-established lines of communication should be developed between the courtsand treatment professionals.

' Treatment programs need to include a special monitoring unit to supervise youthwith severe substance abuse problems.

' The effectiveness of treatment programs must be periodically evaluated.

' Parents of offenders must be involved in post-adjudicatory programs.

Offenders receiving treatment for substance abuse problems must be required toabstain from substance use.

' Consideration should be given to referring youthful impaired driving offenders toself-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Al-Anon,etc.

Treatment patients should be obliged to report to a judge upon completion of theirprogram.

' Youth in recovery should be considered for their potential to deliver preventionmessages to their peers.

ri f si57 "

IX. LegislationA pressing need exists for legislative leader-

ship. Youth, as Rod Monroe declared, are cryingout for proper rules with certainty of conse-quences. Inadequate laws, combined with laxenforcement and irregular sentencing, have con-tributed *- situation in which adolescentyouths rot 'v drink and often drink anddrive. The effe 'f this situation are manifold.Not only do yc people form bad habits andfail to get help for their substance abuse prob-lems, but they learn that the law means noth-ing and that they can violate it with impunity.The challenge exists for legislators to enact lawsthat combat the problem of alcohol abuse, thatreflect the concerns of the community, and thatgain the respect of youth.

Testifiers were united in affirming that aneed exists for additional legislation. In discuss-ing areas for legislative activity, testifiers of-fered both specific recommendations and gener-al guidelines. The specific recommendationshave been discussed in earlier chapters of thisreport. They included such measures as a 0.0BAC for youths under age 21; administrativeper se license revocations; prohibitions on themanufacture and possession of fraudulent driv-ing licenses; increased penalties for persons con-victed of selling alcohol to minors; and mandato-ry classroom instruction in grades K-12 on theeffects and use of alcohol and other drugs.

In addition to specific legislative recommenda-tions, testifiers offered four general guidelinesfor the formulation of more effective impaireddriving laws:

1) laws must be perceived as fair and thepenalty proportionate to the offense;

2) laws must not confound or frustrate lawenforcement officers in the pursuit oftheir responsibilities;

3) laws must complement and reinforce oneanother;

4) laws must discriminate between adultsand youths and provide separate provi-sions and punishments for each.

The Perception of FairnessThe first of the guidelines concerned fairness.

In order for impaired driving legislation to beeffective, it must be perceived as fair. Penaltiesmust be seen as proportional to the offense; sen-

I'.

T__of .____

tences must be consistent. Though an apparent-ly simple guideline, testifiers cited numerous ex-amples of laws designed to reduce youth im-paired driving which failed because of the per-ception that they were unfair. The issue of fair-ness poses a problem to lawmakers becausejudging the fairness of a penalty involves one'sassessment of the seriousness of the problem. Ina community where drinking and driving byyouth is not perceived as a serious offense, pen-alties that might be considered entirely reasona-ble in another location may be viewed as exces-sively harsh. This problem highlights the factthat no single measure can solve the problem ofyouth impaired driving. Legislation is importantbut, by itself, insufficient; it often must be com-bined with community education to makepeople aware of the seriousness of impaireddriving violations.

When laws are perceived as unfair and thepenalties excessively harsh, three problems mayarise: 1) police may not enforce the law; 2)judges may not sentence offenders; and 3)youths may be alienated and rebel against thelaw. Testifiers related examples of each prob-lem.

The failure of police to enforce the law wascited commonly as a problem. In Iowa, for in-stance, legislation has increased the punish-ments for DWI offenses in recent years, and thishas resulted in an enforcement problem. Ac-cording to Kay Chopard, "Officers are hesitantto take in a juvenile whom they fear will betreated harshly." Viewing adolescent drinkingas a part of growing up and not sufficientreason to saddle youths with a criminal record,Iowa police reportedly are reluctant to arrestyouths for drinking and driving violations.

A similar problem may arise with judges whoresist sentencing offenders to what they consid-er unfair punishments. Sergeant Ken Taylor, aTennessee sheriff, described how the unwilling-ness of judges to sentence offenders hamperedhis county's efforts to stop convenience storesfrom selling alcohol to underage youth. Deapitean undercover operation that was successfu. incatching clerks selling beer to youth, the sher-iff's office encountered trouble obtaining convic-tions. As Taylor explained, "the reason we werehaving trouble getting the convictions was be-

59

cause of the severity of Tennessee's law. If aperson is convicted of selling alcohol to a minor,then he is prohibited from working in a placethat sells alcohol for 10 years. The judges lookedat that as a little strong. So they would pass acase for six months and render judgment at theend of six months. And most of the time theydismissed the cases if the person had not beeninvolved in another offense of this nature."

Judges and law enforcement officials are notthe only ones whose actions are compromised bythe enactment of laws perceived as unfair.Youth may also react negatively to the percep-tion of unfairness. Dr. Hawkins of the Centerfor Social Research at the University of Wash-ington expressed concern at the eff,ct that dis-proportionate penalties may have on the behav-ior of youth. "We have to be careful," he said,"that our efforts to develop sanctions and pun-ishment-oriented strategies do not create an-other generation of outsiders. It does not re-quire a driver's license to drink and drive. With-holding a driver's license alone will not preventdrinking and driving." Concluding his com-ments with a warning that harsh penalties mayonly produce a youth subculture that defies thelaw, Hawkins urged legislators to consider strat-egies that emphasize rewards for responsible be-havior rather than punishments for violations.

When punishments are necessary, WilliamHayes of the New Jersey Office of HighwaySafety offered a word of advice: "The advicethat New Jersey would offer would be to keepyour laws simple, keep them at a level whereyou really intend to assess the penalty. Don'thave penalties in there that say you go to jailfor two years if nobody really goes to jail fortwo years." Such penalties have a two-fold nega-tive effect: first, they may undermine the en-forcement of a legitimately needed law; andsecond, they may give the appearance thatprogress is occurring when in fact nothing isreally been done to reduce the frequency ofyouth-impaired driving.

While laws undermine their own effectivenesswhen the penalties appear too harsh, theyachieve equally little when the penalties are tooweak. For example, when the Iowa legislatureraised the minimum drinking age to 21, it madethe sale of alcohol to 19 and 20 year olds amisdemeanor, punishable only by a fine. SinceIowa establishments know that they cannot bepunished by a jail sentence or by the revocationof their liquor license, they continue to serve 19and 20 year olds with impunity, according totestifiers, and have merely raised their covercharges to pay for the fines they might incur.

Examples such as this led a number of testifiersto call for increased severity of sanctions forestablishments that engage in a regular practiceof selling alcohol to underage youth. These sanc-tions, they asserted, must include the threat oflosing their liquor license for repeated viola-tions.

Eliminating Encumbrances to LawEnforcement

The second guideline testifiers offered ex-pressed the conviction that laws should not con-found or frustrate law enforcement officers inthe pursuit of their duty. In framing legislation,lawmaker- must make it as simple as possiblefor police to arrest and detain youths, while stillprotecting the rights of young people. The impe-tus for this recommendation arose from com-plaints about legislation that has complicatedenforcement. Several states, for instance, re-quire that juveniles and adults be detained inseparate facilities and not merely in segregatedareas at the same facility. This provision, testifi-ers noted, has deterred the arrest of youth for"minor" offenses like impaired driving, particu-larly in rural areas that may be a long distancefrom the nearest juvenile detention center.Similarly, laws such as the Texas "Open Con-tainer" Law requiring officers to witness theconsumption of alcohol by a driver in order tomake an arrest increase the difficulty of theofficer's task and reduce the likelihood of anarrest. Finally, the complexity of juvenile courtproceedings and the demand that such proceed-ings often make upon an arresting officer's timewere said to deter police from arresting youthfor impaired driving violations.

Consistent LawThe third guideline that testifiers emphasized

was the need for laws to complement and rein-force one another. In several states, older lawsneed to be amended to reflect more recent legis-lation. Wisconsin's "Not a Drop" Law, for exam-ple, establishes a zero BAC level for driversunder age 19. With a minimum drinking age of21, however, the "Not A Drop" Law appearsinconsistent. If drinking is illegal for 19 and 20year olds, why shouldn't a 19 or 20 year old whois caught driving impaired be subject to thesame penalties as an 18 year old? Similar incon-sistencies plague drinking and driving laws inother states. In Iowa, when the drinking agewas 18, the license of an underage DWI offendercould be revoked until the offender reached the

60

61

legal drinking age. When the minimum drink-ing age was raised to 19, licenses of underageDWI offenders were revoked until the offenderreached his or her 19th birthday. With the en-actment of legislation raising the drinking ageto 21, however, the age of revocation was low-ered rather than raised, so that the license ofan underage offender could be reinstated at age18 rather than 21. Inconsistencies such as this,intentional or otherwise, obviously weaken theeffect of the law and send a conflicting messageto youth about the seriousness of the offense.

The Unique Nature of Youth Impaired Driving

The fourth and final guideline that testifiersoffered concerned the need for legislation thatdeals specifically with the problem of youth im-paired driving. Throughout the hearings, testifi-ers declared that impaired driving legislationmust discriminate between youth and adults.All too often, legislation is framed with theadult driver in mind and is consequently inap-plicable for youths. For example, in Iowa, driv-ers arrested with a BAC level in excess of .20are required to obtain substance abuse evalua-

61

tion. By the time youths reach a .20 BAC level,however, they are often incapacitated. Due totheir lower alcohol tolerance, juveniles mayhave a serious dependency problem and requiretreatment even though they never exhibit a .20BAC level. Therefore, the BAC level at whichyouth are sent for evaluation ought to be lowerthan the level established for adults.

The need for legislation to distinguish be-tween youth and adults raises a theme thatemerged as the hearings progressed. In manyways, youth impaired driving is a separate issuefrom adult drunk driving. The difference lies inboth the problem and the solution. The problemis different in that the circumstances in whichyouth drink and drive differ from the circum-stances of adult violators. As testifiers noted,youth exhibit a decided proclivity to risk-takingbehavior; they are less experienced drivers; andthey are highly sensitive to peer pressure. Dif-ferences in circumstances demand different so-lutions. Provisional licenses for youth under 21,lower BAC levels, and differing license sanc-tions are among the areas where legislation isneeded to reduce the incidence of drinking anddriving by youth.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONSLegislation

The following legislative measures should be enacted to deter impaired driving by youth:

' For youth under the legal drinking age, impairment should be defined as any bloodalcohol level above 0.0 BAC.

Administrative per se license suspensions should be statutorily permitted.

Open container laws should be promulgated.

' Strict sanctions should exist for the sale or transfer of alcoholic beverages to youthsunder the legal drinking age.

The manufacture of fraudulent driving licenses should be prohibited and punishedseverely.

* In the absence of administrative action by the appropriate state agencies, statelegislatures should consider legislation in the following areas:

1) mandatory classroom instruction on alcohol use, other drug use, and impaireddriving for grades K-12 together with curriculum guidelines for each grade level

2) insurance rebates for drivers who take an approved driving risk reductioncourse and have a clean driving record

3) mandatory component on alcohol use and impaired driving in driver educationcourses.

63 f'3

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONSa In the absence of alcohol industry action, legislation should be enacted to regulate

alcohol beverage advertising. Repeatedly, testifiers at the hearings voiced concernabout its detrimental influence on young people; and with near unanimity, theyouths themselves declared that advertising encourages adolescents to drink.

* Education programs directed at youth impaired driving should stress theimportance of wearing safety belts.

* Everyone involved in the effort to eliminate youth impaired driving must recognizethat a continuous need exists to evaluate the effectiveness of all programs andactivities, including a determination of what works, what does not work, and whatcan be replicated.

a Communities must recognize that youth impaired driving is a distinct problem,demanding specific strategies that go beyond the existing measure in place for thedrunk driving problem.

CONCLUSIONWhile this concludes the recommendations that came out of the hearings, the Report

does not presume to respond to every problem that might be associated with youthfulimpaired drivitig. In fact, many more recommendations could have been included, but thoseoffered should be regarded as priorities for prompt action. A word of caution, however - thelistening to, the recording of, and the making of recommendations for youthful impaireddriving, is but a beginning.

This Report can serve as a focus for communities to see what has been done and what yetneeds to be done to ensure the well-being of our young people. As they are identified as apopulation at risk on our highways, especially when impaired, we must recognize that theAmerican people, in both the public and private sectors, must respond with a responsibleplan of action. The testimony of the young people at all the hearing sites demanded adultconcern, correction and above all, love. Such candor surely deserves a community commit-ment to remedy the problem. The youth impaired driving model which was used as thebasis for this Report is the National Commission's prescription for the health and safety ofAmerican youth.

67rl ')

APPENDIX I

DIRECTORY OF YOUTH PROGRAMS

PROGRAMS

The following list consists of programs discussed by testifiers at the five hearings. Theprograms are listed alphabetically according to the hearing site at which they were men-tioned. The descriptions are those given by testifiers.

CHICAGO

AL-CO-HOLa classroom alcohol education program for junior high school students devel-oped by the American Automobile Association.

Akohol and the Driving Taska course sponsored by the American Automobile Associa-tion for college students who are preparing for teacher training.

Boy Scouts of Ames i "a Explorers Divisionsponsors safe rides programs.

Come of Agea program developed by Southland Corporation that was distributed to 40,000junior high schools around the country to encourage youth not to drink while underage.

Comprehensive Awareness Program (CAP)a 15 hour court-run program in Toledo, Ohio,for juveniles convicted of alcohol-related offenses. The program assesses the offender's levelof alcohol involvement and employs police officers, health professionals and youth testifiersto instruct participants and their families about the problem of underage drinking andimpaired driving.

Comprehensive Chemical Abuse Reduction through Educational Services (CARES)acounty-wide program in Lucas County (Toledo), Ohio, which utilizes a multi-disciplinaryapproach to combat substance abuse by youth.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)a cooperative law enforcement and educationeffort developed by the Los Angeles Police Department in which police officers teachclasses and give presentations in elementary schools on drug abuse.

Harm's Waya prevention program that includes a film presentation on spinal cordinjuries and presentations from paraplegics who were paralyzed in motor vehicle crashesinvolving alcohol.

Illinois Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Association: Illinois Teenage Institute on Sub-stance Abusea 6-day live-in experience to provide teens an opportunity to learn positivelife-skills and enhance positive approaches to changing drinking and drug-related attitudesand behavior of their peers.

In Toucha network of program coordinators who facilitate other prevention programs.

Intervention/Crossroadspoly-drug residential treatment programs for offenders age 25and under that maintain a structured "peer family setting" and are used by the Illinoiscourts.

Just Say No Foundationa foundation which supports drug prevention programs includingJust Say No Clubs, where members gain information, skills, and support to resist peerpressure and other influences to use drugs.

71

Parents Helping Parentsa parent support group based on 'Tough Love' concept. Seeks toassist parents troubled by undesirable behavior of children.

Operation Snowballa program sponsored by the Illinois Alcoholism and Drug DependenceAssociation in which students receive information on alcohol and drugs and are taught tobecome community leaders at weekend camps. High school participants in turn give talksto junior high and elementary school children at sessions known as Snowflakes.

Outlawsan Iowa organization formed by teenagers who have decided not to use alcohol ordrugs.

Project Graduationa federal program that provides information on how to initiate, orga-nize and generate support for alcohol and drug-free graduation parties.

Quest Internationalan educational organization based in Columbus, Ohio, that addressesa variety of problems that youth experience such as alienation, alcohol and drug use andteenage pregnancy.

Skills for Adolescentsdeveloped by the Quest National Center in Columbus, Ohio, it isdesigned to help students, primarily those in junior high school, increase self-confidence, setpersonal goals and resist negative peer pressure to use alcohol.

Starting Earlyan alcohol and traffic safety awareness program for elementary schools,grades K-6, developed by the American Automobile Association.

State Trooper Attitudes and Responsibilities (STAR)a classroom program for grades K-12employed by the Illinois State Police in which law enforcement officers discuss a six-pointagenda covering substance abuse, self-esteem, making friends, decision-making skills,saying "no" and alternatives to substance abuse.

Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management (T.E.A.M.) a program supported by theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Basketball Association,Major League Baseball, and other public and private organizations promoting responsiblealcohol service in public assembly facilities.

Teen Leadera pilot project sponsored by the Ohio Department of Public Safety thatattempts to change student attitudes toward drinking and driving by providing leadershiptraining to teams of 24 juniors and seniors in selected schools over a two-year period.

The Clown Programa program in which high school students in Illinois use clowns toprovide information to young children about alcohol and drugs.

The Control Factora program developed by the Minnesota chapter of the National SafetyCouncil which uses high school students to address key issues in preventing youth frombecoming involved in drinking.

Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP)a coalition of individuals from publicagencies, private organizations and businesses in the Washington, D.C. region that sponsorsseasonal media campaigns and supports legislation to strengthen impaired driving counter-measures.

BOSTON

Athletes Against Drunk Drivinga program sponsored by New York state involving profes-sional athletes who speak in high schools about the dangers of drinking and driving.

Emergency Nurses C.A.R.E. (Cancel Alcohol Related Emergencies)a nationwide organiza-tion of nurses that volunteer their services to teach about the hazards of impaired driving.

Make Up Your Minda program prepared by the New York 4-H Foundation that helpsmiddle school students understand the physiological and psychological effects of alcohol.

No Booze the Clowna program in Tompkins County, New York, in which a clown speaksto fourth graders about the dangers of drinking and driving.

72 c c

Operation Last Calla program implemented by the Massachusetts State Police to deterlicensed liquor establishments from selling beverage alcohol to underage youth.

Price Chopper's 21-year-old Button Campaignprovides training to employees on how toidentify underage individuals and deny sales of beverage alcohol.

Students Against Driving Drunk (SADD)a national organization started in Wayland HighSchool, Massachusetts, which encourages high school chapters to promote anti-drinkingdriving activities and a student/parent safe rides contract.

Staying Alivea program prepared by the Orange County, California, Trauma Society thatprovides alternative alcohol-free activities for high school students.

Students to Offset Peer Pressure (S.T.O.P.P.)a student organization originating in NewHampshire that sponsors alcohol and drug-free events among other activities.

21 Enforcement Prog--,n--an effort underway in three New York counties in cooperationwith 19 police agencies that aims to develop low-cost programs to deter alcohol consump-tion by underage youth.

You're Looking Younger Every Daya program sponsored by Atlantic Refining and Market-ing for its "A Plus" Stores that trains employees to require proof of age for all alcoholpurchases by young adults. Customers under 30 who are not asked for proof are given $1coupons.

SEATTLE

Children of Alcoholicsa statewide program in Idaho sponsored by the Office of HighwaySafety that attempts to reach those youth who are at especially high risk of drinking anddriving.

Chemical People Institutean organization that promotes awareness, understanding andaction concerning alcohol and other drug problems through the promotion of community'Ask forces.

Dram-edyan Alaskan version of the "Friday Night Live" program developed by theAlaska Council on the Prevention of Alcohol and Drug abuse that uses a mixture ofcomedy and drama to teach safety messages and refusal skills through student theater.

DWI Victims Panela panel composed of five people whose lives have been affected by animpaired driving crash. The program is designed to provide convicted DWI offenders with apersonal perspective on the agony inflicted upon victims by drunk drivers. The panel alsospeaks to driver education classes and military base personnel.

Friday Night Livea school-based prevention program implemented in many states thatuses school assemblies and refusal skills training to teach students to stop their friendsfrom drinking and driving.

Here's Looking at You, Twoa comprehensive school curriculum for grades K-12, togetherwith a teacher training program to prepare teachers to implement the curriculum in theirclassrooms. The curriculum focuses on providing students with facts about alcohol andother drugs and helping them to develop the self-esteem and inter-personal skills necessaryto handle situations where they are confronted with the choice of using drugs.

Here's Looking at You, 2000a K-12 school-based curriculum that is developed around 11key risk factors of adolescent substance abuse and focuses on gateway drugs such asnicotine, alcohol and marijuana. It is a multimedia approach that utilizes cross-age teach-ir.g to reinforce prevention messages and is designed to teach students information andsocial skills, while promoting school and family bonding.

In Harm's WayA school assembly program developed by the Oregon Neurological Societyand nurses in the state to explain the importance of good health relating to traffic safetyprograms such as seat belts and drunk driving awareness campaigns.

73

Fig

It's a Matter of Timea multimedia program developed by the Washington Traffic SafetyCommission that uses young people who have been involved in motor vehicle crashes toinform youth of the dangers of impaired driving.

Life Skills for Little Peoplean educational program for elementary school children spon-sored by the Alaska Highway Safety Office.

Mainstream Youth Program - -an adolescent treatment program in Oregon that receivescourt-referred youth with alcohol problems.

Natural Helpersa program that uses a school-wide survey to identify students and staffmembers who are trusted by students. Natural Helpers receive training in listening,decision-making and referral skills so that they can assist students with problems such asdrug use. The program was developed as a way of helping adolescents deal with problemsby utilizing the peer network existing in their environment.

Oregon Student Safety On the Move (OSSOM)a youth traffic safety organization thatsponsors peer education programs, provides alternative activities to drug and alcohol use,and encourages the practice of safe driving habits.

OSSOM Pipelinea r -eventative peer education program for grad 1 K-12 that trains highschool and middle :_,Iool students to provide classroom instruction to younger students onhighway safety issues.

Pros for Kidsa program that brings professional athletes into schools to talk to studentsabout issues such as impaired driving.

Reducing Adolescent Drinking and Driving (RADD)a high school-based interventionproject devised by the Division of Adolescent Medicine at the University of Washingtonthat aims to reduce automobile crashes by implementing within high school drivers' train-ing classes, a "pre-driving" curriculum on drinking and driving. The project uses anassessment package to identify those students at highest risk and entails specialized pro-gramming for high-risk students.

Road to Winninga program developed by NHTSA and currently used in the states ofAlaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington that is designed to create an awareness among highschool students of the dangers of alcohol and other drugs. The program uses college andprofessional athletes to promote highway safety.

Safe Ridesa program in several Washington counties (including Whatcom County) thatprovides a confidential service for youth who need a ride home after they have beendrinking.

Sober Graduationa California program which, like Project Graduation, offers alcohol-freeevents at graduation time.

Stop Auto Fatalities Through Youth Efforts (SAFTYE)funded and coordinated by theWashington Traffic Safety Commission, SAFTYE is designed to encourage school andcommunity projects that deal with alcohol and drug abuse and safety belt use by teenagedrivers. SAFTYE networks with other high school clubs and conducts workshops, holds anannual conference, sponsors a spring Vuuth Week, and gives awards to outstandingmember clubs.

Stop the Drinking Driver Projectan Alaska program that trains students to refuse todrink and drive and to stop a friend from driving impaired. The program begins with aschool-wide assembly conducted by students and employs role-playing techniques to teachstudents how to resist peer pressure.

Students Offering Better Evening Recreation (SOBER)a student-run program in Oregonthat provides youth with drug-free alternatives for weekend entertainment to help combatteen drinking and driving.

74

70

Washington Teen Institutean organization that promotes peer instruction and trains highschool students to talk to children in lower grades about alcohol and drug use.

ATLANTA

Alternativesan annual conference conducted by the Virginia Alcohol Beverage ControlBoard for colleges and institutions of higher learning in the state to discuss the problem ofunderage campus drinking and share ideas for dealing with it.

Arrive Alive Georgiaa program designed to increase the awareness of high school stu-dents by sponsoring presentations by convicted DWI offenders and asking youth to sign apledge stating that they will not drink, use drugs or ride with a drunken driver.

Commonwealth Alliance for Drug Rehabilitation and Education (CADRE)a Virginia alli-ance of state level agencies, chaired by the state attorney general, that has sought thesupport of the business community in promoting a comprehensive program against youthimpaired driving.

Facesa Mississippi program that uses a small group format to teach youth to develop apositive self-image.

Project Thinka pilot program implemented in the 16 colleges of the South CarolinaTechnical College system that involves activities designed to reduce underage campusdrinking and impaired driving among college students.

School Intervention Program (ScIP)a South Carolina program that operates through thecombined efforts of the states' network of county alcohol and drug abuse programs, thelocal school districts, and the South Carolina Commission on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse inan effort to prevent or reduce the inappropriate use of alcohol and other drugs amongstudents.

Students Staying Straightan organization of high school students in Hamilton County,Tennessee, who contract with themselves to stay straight, and promote activities to encour-age other students who exhibit problems with alcohol or other drugs to stay straight.

FORT WORTH

Alcohol Drug Abuse Really Destroys You (AARDY)AARDY's Army is a prevention pro-gram sponsored by MADD that targets elementary school students.

Fort Worth Challengean organization formed to reduce the harmful effects of substanceabuse in Tar Fant County, Texas.

Free For Lifea refusal skills development program developed by MADD and LifetimeLearning Systems which targets junior high age youth and helps them to recognize anddeal with peer preasure.

Metroplex Project Graduationan alcohol and drug-free high school graduation event at-tended by 15,000 students that occurs at a Texas amusement park and includes a contestwhich awards prizes to the best alcohol or drug-related project devised over the past yearby a high school in the region.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) a national organization with over 400 localchapters dedicated to establishing the public conviction that drunk driving is unacceptableand criminal in order to promote public policies, programs and personal accountability.

None for the Road Partiesa program sponsored by Bally's Aladdin's Castle in whichBally's makes their video entertainment stores available to groups like MADD and SADDfor alcohol-free parties on holidays when youth frequently drink.

75

Oklahoma Challengea program sponsored by the Oklahoma Highway Safety Office thatuses one-day regional workshops and videotapes to develop youth leaders and train them toconduct activities in their schools and communities.

Project Celebrationan expanded version of Project Graduation that offers alcohol anddrug-free events for high school students throughout the year in Texas.

Students Working All Together (SWAT)an alcohol/drug prevention support group forhigh school students in Hurst, Euless and Bedford, Texas.

Tarrant County DWI Task Forcea regional task force composed of representatives fromlaw enforcement agencies, criminal justice and community organizations in TarrantCounty, Texas.

Teen Courta court composed of young people who serve as attorneys, bailiffs, and jurors.Only the judge is an adult. The court adjudicates youth age 10 to 16 who are arrested forclass C driving offenst 3 and enables young people to judge their peers' behavior.

Texans' War on Drugsa statewide illegal drug use prevention organization that encour-ages each community to address its drug problem through education programs targetingyouth, parents, schools and other community influences.

Texas Youth in Actionthe youth component of Texans' War on Drugs. It promotes thephilosophy of youth reaching youth to develop positive peer influence. It works with youngpeople across the state to educate peers on the danger of alcohol and other drug use andthe value of a drug-free lifestyle.

Texas Youth in Action leadership campa summer camp involving workshops and activi-ties designed to promote an exchange of ideas and assist high school students in organizinganti-impaired driving programs in their schools.

Young Oklahoman Drinking and Driving Alternative Programs (YODDAPIa program ofthe Oklahoma Highway Safety Office that offers a course for youth who are stopped fordrinking and driving. The course is designed as an alternative in sentencing.

76

APPENDIX II

11.1 Advisory Committee

11.2 Report Writing Committee

11.3 Chicago Hearing: Panelists and Presentors

11.4 Boston Hearing: Panelists and Presentors

11.5 Seattle Hearing: Panelists and Presentors

11.6 Atlanta Hearing: Panelists and Presentors

11.7 Fort Worth Hearing: Panelists and Presentors

'13

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

David AndersonArlington, Virginia

Elaine Bratic ArkinNorth Arlington, Virginia

Rory BensonNational Association of BroadcastersWashington, D.C.

Dr. William ButynskiNational Association of State Alcohol

and Drug Abuse Directors(NASADAD)

Washington, D.C.

Jude CashmanNational Association of State Boards of

EducationWashington, D.C.

Robert DennistonOffice of Substance Abuse PreventionRockville, Maryland

Karen DodgeNational Highway Traffic Safety

AdministrationWashington, D.C.

Donna FeeleyAmerican Red CrossWashington, D.C.

Carol GianniniSubstance Abuse Coordinator,

Montgomery CountyRockville, Maryland

Allen GoldhamerAllstate Insurance CompanyNorthbrook, Illi:.ois

John J. GiantNational Commission Against Drunk

DrivingWashington, D.0

Susan HerbalNational Highway Traffic Safety

AdministrationLithicum, Maryland

Francis A. IanniDelaware Office of Highway SafetyDover, Delaware

Ralph J. JacksonAllstate Insurance CompanyNorthbrook, Illinois

Francis C. KenaiAmerican Automobile AssociationFalls Church, Virginia

James NicholsNational Highway Traffic Safety

AdministrationWashington, D.0

Jim OnderNational Highway Traffic Safety

AdministrationWashington, D.0

George ReagleAssociate AdministratorNational

Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration

Washington, D.C.

Virginia RoachNational Association of State Boards of

EducationWashington, D.C.

James RyanNational Highway Traffic Safety

AdministrationCambridge, Massachusetts

Edward S. SandsNational Commission Against Drunk

DrivingWashington, D.C.

Judith L. StoneNational Assn. of Governors' Highway

Safety RepresentativesWashington, D.C.

Judge Roy B. WillettRoanoke City CourthouseRoanoke, Virginia

James WrightNational Highway Traffic Safety

AdministrationWashington, D.C.

REPORT WRITINGCOMMITTEE

David AndersonDavid N. Bragdon - Editor'Allen GoldhamerJohn J. GrantMichelle Monroe-GlennJames Wright

David Bragdon reviewed all the writtenand oral testimony, studied the full tran-scripts :c the five hearings, prepared the pre-liminary draft; and edited the final copy

79

74

CHICAGO, ILOctober 27,1987

PANELISTS

V.J Adduci, ChairmanNational Commission Against Drunk

DrivingWashington, D.C.

Debra CamrenYouth PanelistCharleston, Illinois

*Jim EdgarSecretary of StateSpringfield, Illinois

Jordan KaganYouth PanelistSkokie, Illinois

James S. Kemper, Jr., CorporateConsultant

Kemper Group CompaniesSkokie, Illinois

Margot KlimczakYouth PanelistLake Forest, Illinois

George Reagie, Associate AdministratorNational Highway Traffic Safety

AdministrationWashington, D C.

Melvin Smith, Director - Div of TrafficSafety

Illinois State Department ofTransportation

Springfield, Illinois

Lawrence H. Williford, Vice Chairman-NCADD

V P -Corporate Relations, AllstateInsurance Company

Northbrook, Illinois

PRESENTORS

Charles Atkin, ProfessorDepartment of CommunicationsMichigan State University

Kay ChopardProsecuting Attorney's CouncilDes Moines, Iowa

Deputy William M Denihar.Director, Department of Highway

SafetyColumbus, Ohio

Judge Andy DevineLucas County Court of Common Pleas

Juvenile DivisionToledo, Ohio

Jerome EnglandYouth PresentorSparta, Tennessee

Judge Christopher FoleyChildren's Court - BranchMilwaukee, Wisconsin

Susan HolbrookYouth PresentorBelleville, Illinois

Terrance Schiavone, Executive DirectorGovernor's Highway Safety BureauBoston, Massachusetts

`John A. Volpe, Chairman EmeritusNational Commission Against Drunk

DrivingNahant, Massachusetts

14 PRESENTORS

Judge Anthony MontelionePresiding Justice - Circuit CourtChicago, Illinois

William O'Sullivan, Superintendent ofTroopers

Department of State PoliceSpringfield, Illinois

Rosemary ParkerSouthland CorporationAlexandria, Virginia

Angie StanfieldYouth PresentorGrant Park, Illinois

Rita WeissAmerican Automobile AssociationFalls Church, Virginia

Region V NHTSA Contacts:

Richard M. Cook, Administrator

James Downey, Highway SafetySpecialist

BOSTON, MANovember 17,1987

PANELISTS

V.J. Adduci, ChairmanNational Commission Against Drunk

DrivingWashington, D.0

Doris Aiken, PresidentRemove Intoxicated DriversSchenectady, New York

John P. Giuggio, PresidentThe Boston GlobeBoston, Massachusetts

Jennifer HallYouth Panelist, Trinity CollegeHartford, Connecticut

James Nichols, ChiefAlcohol Programs Division, NHTSAWashington, D.C.

Patricia Adduci, CommissionerDepartment of Motor VehiclesAlbany, New York

Anna BarrazaGovernor's Youth Alcohol CommissionProvidence, Rhode Island

Thomas CullenGovernor's Alliance Against DrugsBoston, Massachusetts

William CullinaneStudents Against Driving DrunkMalboro, Massachusetts

Sandra Del SestoGovernor's Youth Alcohol CommissionProvidence, Rhode Island

Vicki FisichelliSTOPP ProgramNashua, New Hampshire

Barbara FoleyEmergency Nurses C.A.R E.Westborough, Massachusetts

Albert GodfreyMaine Highway Safety CommissionWinthrop, Maine

Michelle HaasSTOPP ProgramNashua, New Hampshire

William Hayes, DirectorOffice of Highway SafetyTrenton, New Jersey

George McCarthyAlcohol Beverage Control CommissionBoston, Massachusetts

Martha O'Connor, ChairState Board of EducationBrattleboro, Vermont

Diane RogersGovernor a Youth Alcohol CommissionProvidence, Rhode Island

John RossiYouth PresentorFramingham, Massachusetts

Judge Phillip TrompeterJuvenile JusticeRoanoke, Virginia

Dr. David Winer, Dean of StudentsTriaity CollegeHartford, Connecticut

80

Region I NHTSA Contacts:

John T. Connors (FormerAdministrator Retired)

George Luciano, Administrator

James Ryan, Highway Safety Specialist

SEATTLE, WAFebruary 22,1988

PANELISTS

V.J. Adduci, ChairmanNational Commission Against Drunk

DrivingWashington, D C.

Gil W. Bellamy, AdministratorOregon Traffic Safety CommissionSalem, Oregon

'Michael D Bradbury, Esq.District AttorneyVentura, California

Niki KingYouth PanelistHood River, Oregon

Samuel C McCullum, DirectorWashington Traffic Safety CommissionOlympia, Washington

Jerome J. MitchellYouth PanelistPortland, Oregon

Karen OlsenYouth PanelistShelton, Washington

William Scott, DirectorOffice of Alcohol and State Programs,

NHTSAWashington, D.C.

Lawrence H. Williford, Vice Chairman- NCADD

V.P Corporate Relations, AllstateInsurance Company

Northbrook, Illinois

PRESENTORS

Shirley AndersonSnohomish County MADDBothell, Washington

Peter Brissing, Project DirectorDiv. of Adolescent MedicineUniversity of Washington at Seattle

Lin Carlson, Drug/Alcohol CoordinatorSeattle Public SchoolsSeattle, Washington

Brian CooperCurtis High SchoolTacoma, Washington

Crystal DoddsYouth PresentorSeattle, Washington

Tom FraneyYouth PresentorPortland, Oregon

Megan GleasonWashington Middle SchoolSeattle, Washington

Dr. David HawkinsSchool of Social ScienceUniversity of Washington at Seattle

Norma Jaeger, Project DirectorMultnomah County DWI CoordinatorPortland, Oregon

Debra JarvisOregon Students for Safety on the

MoveCorvallis, Oregon

Jennifer Juckett"ROAD TO WINNING" P. ogramEverett, Washington

T. Michael Lewis, Program DirectorHighway Safety Planning AgencyJeneau, Alaska

Launta MaderYouth PresentorSeattle, Washington

Rod MonroeState SenatorPortland, Oregon

Susan MontgomeryMainstream Youth Program -

Multnomah CountyPortland, Oregon

David MooreOlympic CounselingGig Harb ,r, Washington

Tom MurphyMainstream Youth Program -

Multnomah CountyPortland, Oregon

Renee NiblerSAFTYE, Youth Program ManagerOlympia, Washington

Peter Nunnenkamp, Driver SafetyManager

Division of Motor VehiclesSalem, Oregon

Julie Peterson, Deputy DirectorWashington Traffic Safety CommissionOlympia, Washington

Tarrol PetersonYouth PresentorEllensburg, Washington

Pat Ramo, Acting Program ManagerIdaho Department of TransportationBoise, Idaho

Clay RobertsRoberts, Fitzmahan AssociatesSeattle,Washington

James E Smith, CommissionerCalifornia Highway PatrolSacramento, California

Wes SmithGreater Albany Public SchoolsAlbany, Oregon

Tony SnyderYouth PresentorPortland, Oregon

John StricklerWashington Middle SchoolSeattle, Washington

Bruce StrothersYouth PresentorSeattle, Washington

Major Lynden W WoodmanseeWashington State PatrolOlympia, Washington

Bruce Yates, Youth AlcoholCoordinator

Prevention of Alcoholism and DrugAbuse

Anchorage, Alaska

Region X NHTSA Contacts:

Curtis A Winston, AdministratorMichael Baldwin, Highway Safety

Specialist

ATLANTA, GAMarch 3, 1988

PANELISTS

V J Adduci, ChairmanNational Commission Against Drunk

DrivingWashington, D C

Cecil AlexanderCommittee to Comabat Drugged and

Drunken DrivingAtlanta, Georgia

Beverly Campbell, Director of PublicCommunication

The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints

Washington, D.0

Thomas Enright, RegionalAdministrator

National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration

Atlanta, Georgia

'Robert Kirk, Professor - Health &Safety

University of TennesseeKnoxville, Tennessee

81 76

Dan LathamYouth PanelistRidgeland, Mississippi

Minuard C McGuire, DirectorOffice of Highway SafetyAtlanta, Georgia

Edward L Morgan, Asst V.PCorp rate Relations

Allstate I drance CompanyNorthbrook, Illinois

PRESENTORS

Vincent M Burg- sTransportation . Administrator,

DMVRichmond, Virginia

Gloria Busch-Johnson, Dean of StudentServices

Aiken Technical CollegeAiken, South Carolina

Larry M Ellis, CoordinatorGovernor's Highway Safety ProgramNashville, Tennessee

Richard GallaspieYouth PresentorCrawfordville, Georgia

Alison GentryYouth PresentorAtlanta, Georgia

John Harris, DirectorBureau of Law EnforcementTallahassee, Florida

Angie HowingtonYouth PresentorJefferson, Georgia

Representative Jerry D JacksonChairman - House Motor Vehicle

CommitteeAtlanta, Georgia

John LaceyHighway Safety Research CenterUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill

Jack L Mathis, Founder and ChairmanArrive AliveDecatur, Georgia

William J McCord, DirectorSC Commission on Alcohol & Drug

AbuseColumbia, South Carolina

Judge Romae T Powell, PresidentNational Council of Juvenile/Family

Court JudgesAtlanta, Georgia

Sergeant Ken Taylor, CommanderDUI Task Force-Hamilton County

Sheriffs DepartmentChattanooga, Tennessee

Judge Roy B. Willett, Vice PresidentNational Council of Juvenile/Family

Court JudgesRoanoke, Virginia

Bob WilsonDistrict AttorneyDecatur, Georgia

Region IV NHTSA Contacts:

Thomas Enright, Administrator

C.V. Rice, Highway Safety Specialist

Romell W. Cooks, Highway SafetySpecialist

FT. WORTHMarch 29 1988

PANELISTS

Beverly Campbell, Director of PublicCommunications

The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints

Washingtt, D.C.

Lim CurryCriminal District AttorneyFort Worth, Texas

Allen Goldhamer, Manager-AdvocacyPrograms

Allstate Insurance CompanyNorthbrook, Illinois

John J. Grant, Program DirectorNational Commission Against Drunk

DrivingWashington, D.C.

Keith Mc BurnettYouth PanelistEuless, Texas

Wayne NashYouth PanelistEuless, Texas

*Norma Phillips, PresidentMothers Against Drunk DrivingEscondido, California

William Scott, DirectorOffice of Alcohol and State Programs,

NHTSAWashington, D.C.

Betty Theis, Executive DirectorLouisiana Highway Safety CommissionBaton Rouge, Louisiana

PRESENTORS

Sgt. Esther AlvarezFort Worth Police DepartmentFort Worth, Texas

Margaret BergdollYouth PresenterEuless, Texas

Kevin Brown, Youth PresenterTexans' War on Drugs/Texas Youth in

ActionBedford, Texas

Cindy BurbankYouth PresenterEuless, Texas

Jimmy Evans, Youth PresenterAustin CollegeSherman, Texas

Brian Garner, Youth PresenterStudents Working All TogetherHurst, Texas

Eddie Garth, OfficerArlington Police DepartmentArlington, Texas

Mekecia Hadi, Youth PresenterTexans' War on Drugs/Texas Youth in

ActionBedford, Texas

Roy Hale, Coordinator of SellerTraining

Texas Alcohol Beverage CommissionAustin, Texas

Judge Anthony HeckemeyerPresiding Circuit JudgeBenton, Missouri

Mary Ann Hughes, Special Asst.Attorney General

New Mexico Department of PublicSafety

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Fran Hurtado, National YouthProgram Coordinator

Mothers Against Drunk Dr!vingHurst, Texas

Delbert KarnesAlcohol Program ManagerOklahoma City, Oklahoma

Stephanie Lauridsen, Youth PresenterTexans' War on Drugs/Texas Youth in

ActionBedford, Texas

Monica Lopez, Youth PresentorStudents Working All TogetherEuless, Texas

82

Kevin McCombsYouth PresentorEuless, Texas

Edward MuldowneyYouth PresentorBedford, Texas

Patrick O'MalleyUniversity of Michigan Institute for

Social ResearchAnn Arbor, Michigan

Terry PenceTexas Department of Highway Public

TransportationAustin, Texas

Lori Price, Youth PresenterStudents Working All TogetherHurst, Texas

Jim RodriguezOklahoma Governor's Highway Safety

RepOklahoma City, Oklahoma

Amy Saladino, Youth PresenterStudents Working All TogetherHurst, Texas

Carol SavageTarrant County DWI Task ForceFt Worth, Texas

Harold Simmons, ChairmanProject GraduationEuless, Texas

Gary TrietschState Department of Highways and

Public TransportationAustin, Texas

Mark Whittaker, Director of SalesBally's Aladdin's CastleArlington, Texas

Terry WilbanksYouth PresenterEuless, Texas

Gene Wilkins, Driver EducationSpecialist

Texas Education AgencyAustin, Texas

Region VI NHTSA Contact:

Georgia Jupinko, Administrator

Vernon L. With, Highway SafetySpecialist

'Panel Chairperson at each hearing

APPENDIX III

HU 1988 Survey on Drinking and Driving Among High SchoolSeniors

111.2 Youth Fatal Crash Sty tistics

1988 Survey

Drinking and Driving Among American HighSchool SeniorsInstitute for Social ResearchThe University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Percent Having Used Alcohol in Past 30 days: 69.7 69.4 67.2 65.9 65.3 66.4

Percent Drinking Five or More Drinks in a Row in Past TwoWeeks: 40.5 40.8 38.7 36.7 36.8 3'7.5

Percent Driving After Drinking Alcohol: 31.2 29.0 26.8 26.6

Percent /driving After Having Five or More Drinks: 18.3 16.6 15.8 15.0

Percent Riding as Passenger After Driver Had Been DrinkingAlcohol: - 44.2 39.1 38.2 38.2

Percent Riding as Fassenger After Driver Had Five or MoreDrinks: - 25.4 21.5 21.2 21.9

Percent of Seniors Using Seatbeltes When Driving:

Never, Seldom - - 43.2 36.7

Always - - 25.0 33.0

Percent Reporting One or More Accidents in Past 12 Months: 22.2 22 2 22.8 24.4 25.1 25.6

Percent Having One or More Accidents After Alcohol Use inPast 12 Months: 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.2 2.5

Percent Reporting One or More Moving Violations in Past 12Months: 24.8 27.1 26.5 27.6 30.4 31.7

Percent Cited for Moving Violation After Alcohol Use in Past12 Months: 5.0 5.1 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.6

Youth Fatalities and Alcohol-Related Fatalities1982-1987

PercentChange From:

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 19871982- 1986-1987 1987

I. Youth (15-20) Fatalities

Total Fatalities 8508 7914 8101 7663 8553 8215 -3.4 -4.0

Alcohol-Related Fatalities 5380 4747 4718 4184 4642 4204 -21.9 -9.4Percent 63 2 60.0 58.2 54.6 54.3 51.2 -19.1 -5.7

Fatalities with .10% BAC or Greater 4123 3617 3487 3048 3271 2888 -30 0 -11.7Percent 48.5 45.7 43 0 39.8 38.2 35.2 -27.5 -8.1

II. Young Drivers Involved in FatalCrashes

Total Drivers 10080 9547 10046 9659 10470 :0194 1.1 -2.6

Alcohol-Related Fatalities 4379 3966 3927 3387 3761 3356 -23.4 -10.8Percent 43.4 41.5 39.1 35.1 35.9 32.9 -24.2 -8.4

Driver BAC .10% or Greater 3092 2789 2636 2276 2434 2109 -31.8 -13.4Percent 30.7 29.2 26.2 23.6 23.2 20.7 -32.6 -11.0

III. Young Drivers Killed

Total Drivers 4526 4252 4525 4281 4658 4583 1.3 -1.6

Alcohol-Related Drivers 2501 2270 2294 2000 2210 1939 -22.5 -12.3Percent 55.3 53.4 50.7 46.7 47.4 42.3 -23.4 -10.8

Driver BAC .10% or Greater 1953 1742 1712 1440 1571 1357 -30.5 -13.6Percent 43.2 41.0 37.8 33.6 33.7 29.6 -31.4 -12 2

IV. Youth Fatalities Involving YoungDrivers

Total Fatalities 723 6296 6614 6175 6966 6737 0.2 -3.3

Alcohol-Related Fatalities 3753 3372 3416 2938 3338 2968 -20.9 -11.1Percent 55.8 53.6 51.6 47.6 47.9 44.1 -21.1 -8.1

Driver BAC .10% or Greater 2763 2483 2403 2041 2248 1931 -30.1 -14.1Percent 41.1 39.4 36.3 33.1 32.3 28.7 -30.3 -11.2

For further information or additional copies of this report contact:

National Commission Against Drunk Driving1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 904Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 452-0130

US Departmentof Transportation

National HighwayTraffic SafetyAdministration

400 Seventh St . S WWashington, D C 20590

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

DOT HS 807 347Decem ber 1988

Postage and Fees PaidNational HighwayTraffic SafetyAdministrationDOT 517