Abstract
The present study examined whether ever being arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) was associated with higher levels of substance use and criminal activity in a sample of 800 probationers. Lifetime and 30 day histories of substance use and criminal activity were compared across three groups of probationers from rural Kentucky: those with a single DUI arrest, those with two or more DUI arrests, and those with no DUI arrests. A larger percentage of probationers with a DUI arrest reported lifetime and 30 day substance use than non-DUI offenders in almost all drug and alcohol categories. Higher prevalence of criminal activity was limited primarily to the multiple DUI arrest group. Findings add to the literature on rural substance abusers and indicate that DUI may be used as a marker to help identify opportunities for targeted substance abuse interventions.
Driving under the influence (DUI) is particularly risky because the offense can lead to physical harm to both a victim and an offender. Approximately 250,000 people are injured in alcohol-related crashes in the United States each year (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2005). Although steady declines in DUI arrests have been noted over the last several years, the prevalence of DUI remains relatively high. In 2002, approximately 1.5 million Americans were arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (NHTSA, 2004). According to the Uniform Crime Report (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004), DUI is the third most frequent arrest-type category behind the broader categories of drug abuse violations (1.67 million) and property crimes (1.61 million).
The high prevalence of DUI offenders is quite salient in the United States criminal justice system. Although a DUI conviction can result in incarceration in cases of repeat offenses or in connection with more serious charges (e.g., vehicular manslaughter), most DUI offenders receive probation or less serious sanctions. The highest concentration of DUI offenders in the criminal justice system is within the probation population. In fact, nearly 17% of the 4.2 million probationers in the U.S. are serving sanctions for DUI (Glaze & Palla, 2004).
While alcohol is most associated with DUI, many DUI offenders also use other substances as well. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that two-thirds of offenders on probation for DUI reported prior drug use, including marijuana (65%), crack/cocaine (28%) and other stimulants (29%) and more than half of DUI probationers (56%) indicated using drugs regularly at some point in their lifetime (Maruschak, 1999). Findings from a study examining risky sexual behaviors in DUI offenders found that 34% of participants reported having drug or alcohol problems, half of whom reported using multiple drugs (Siegal, Li, Leviton, Cole, Hook, Bachmann et al., 1999). These studies establish that DUI offenders use a variety of substances but it remains unclear if their substance use differs from other offender samples.
The bulk of research on DUI offenders comes from aggregated national samples (e.g., Maruschak, 1999) and from data collected in populated areas of large states such as California (Cherpitel & Bond, 2003) and New Mexico (C’de Baca, Miller, & Lapham, 2001). Less is known about DUI offenders from more rural areas of the country. This knowledge gap is significant in that national data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) suggests that arrests for DUI may be associated with less populated areas. The Uniform Crime Report data estimates that rates of DUI arrests are 50% higher in Non-metropolitan counties (795 DUI arrests per 100,000 people) than Metropolitan counties (527 DUI arrests per 100,000 people) in the United States (FBI, 2004).
Although little research has focused specifically on rural DUI offenders, a growing literature has investigated substance use in rural areas. While rural communities were once seen as protected against the urban drug problem, these areas are no longer devoid of drug problems (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1997; Schoeneberger, Leukefeld, Hiller, & Godlaski, 2006). In fact, drug use rates have been shown to be comparable in rural and urban areas in both community (Donnermeyer, 1992; Leukefeld, Clayton, & Myers, 1992) and offender samples (Herz & Murray, 2003); however, differences in drugs of choice have been found (Leukefeld et al., 2002). For example, high rates of methamphetamine use (Simons, Oliver, Gaher, Ebel, & Brummels, 2005) and prescription opiates (Leukefeld et al., 2005; Tunnell, 2005) have been noted recently in rural areas of the United States.
Substance use, in general, has long been associated with other criminal activity (Greenfield & Weisner, 1995; Martin, 2001; McBride & McCoy, 1992). This substance use-crime connection has been well-documented and studies indicate that as drug use intensifies, criminal activity often diversifies and criminal careers are perpetuated (Chaiken, 1986; Farabee, Joshi, & Anglin, 2001). Despite this established relationship between substance use and crime, few published reports have examined the prevalence and different types of other criminality among DUI offenders. One study reported that three-fourths of DUI offenders have prior court arraignments and just over half of DUI offenders have been arrested for crimes other than DUI or moving violations (Argeriou, McCarty, & Blacker, 1985). Other studies have examined DUI offenders’ criminal histories and have found a positive association between the number and type of criminal arrests and DUI recidivism (Beerman, Smith, & Hall, 1988; LaBrie, Kidman, Albanese, Peller, & Shaffer, 2007; Nochajski, Miller, Wieczorek, & Whitney, 1993; Wells-Parker, Cosby, & Landrum, 1986). One limitation of these studies is that they rely on arrests, rather than actual criminal activities or behaviors, regardless of arrest.
In summary, the existing DUI literature has established the heterogeneity of the DUI offender population. Variations in substance use and arrest history have been noted, yet it remains unclear whether DUI offenders differ from other offender populations. Furthermore, research on DUI offenders from rural areas has gone largely unexplored. The present study addresses these gaps in the literature by dividing a sample of rural probationers into three groups: those who have been arrested once for DUI in their lifetime, those who have been arrested multiple times for DUI, and those who have never been arrested for DUI. Lifetime and 30 day prevalence rates of alcohol and illicit drug use and criminal activity are compared across these groups. It was expected that substance use rates would be positively related to DUI arrests. It was also predicted that DUI offenders would report more criminal activity than non-DUI offenders.
Method
Participants
As part of a NIDA-funded trial to examine HIV risk reductions in rural probationers, a nonprobability sample of 800 probationers was recruited from 30 counties in rural Kentucky. Study eligibility required that the participant: 1) be on felony probation in one of 30 counties, 2) be 18 years of age or older, and 3) have an interest in participating in the study.
Study participants were mostly male (66.3%) and Caucasian (95.1%) with an average age of 33.8 years (range 19–72). Participants had an average of 10.5 years of education; 64.1% received either a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma. In addition, the majority of participants were not married (67.4%) and had an average of 1.8 children. Thirty-four percent reported having been arrested before age 18 and the mean age of first incarceration as an adult was 23 years. The sample reported being incarcerated an average of six times as an adult with an average of 10.3 months served for convictions. Approximately 40% of participants were currently on probation for property offenses, 41.5% for drug/alcohol offenses, 12.5% for violent offenses, and 15.4% for other offenses.
Procedure
Potential subjects were recruited from the waiting rooms in 30 probation offices in rural Kentucky. Professional, trained study staff approached potential subjects at the probation offices to introduce themselves, and explain the health behavior study. Specifically, the voluntary nature of the study, confidentiality, the benefits of HIV testing, and the amount of incentives were described.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 800 felony probationers between March 2001 and November 2004. Females were over-sampled by 30% to ensure adequate representation and to facilitate a sufficient sample size for data analyses. The baseline interview included informed consent procedures and responding to a research questionnaire. The questionnaire used simple language and covered a variety of topics such as demographic characteristics, criminal history, drug use and treatment history, victimization, health service utilization, HIV knowledge, and both drug- and sex-related HIV risk behaviors. To meet the goals of the larger intervention trial, participants also gave urine and saliva samples, participated in pre-test HIV counseling, received a HIV/AIDS risk reduction intervention and received post-test HIV test counseling two weeks later. Each of these activities occurred after the baseline interview was completed. The baseline interviews took approximately two and one-half hours and were conducted in private locations, such as the meeting rooms in the public library or courthouse, to ensure anonymity. Respondents who completed the interview and provided urine and saliva samples were reimbursed $50 for their time and effort.
Measures
Addiction Severity Index.
The Addiction Severity Index (ASI) is a reliable and valid measure of drug and alcohol abuse severity, health, and treatment change through demographic information and personal histories of health, mental status, legal status, family and social relationships, and employment (McLellan, Luborsky, O’Brien & Woody, 1980). For the present study, the ASI was used to examine demographic information and self-reported histories of substance use. Participants were asked about their lifetime (ever) substance use as well as for the 30 days prior to the arrest that resulted in their current probation. Participants reported their use of alcohol, alcohol to intoxication, marijuana, crack, powder cocaine, heroin, amphetamine, stimulants other than crack/cocaine/amphetamine, PCP, other hallucinogens, inhalants, opiates, Oxycontin®, sedatives, and any other injected drug. In addition, an “any illicit drug use” dichotomous measure was created which included the illicit use of any substance other than alcohol.
Criminal Activity.
Items from an interview developed by Inciardi and Martin (1990) were used to measure the criminal activity and criminal justice involvement for 17 offense categories including shoplifting, burglary, auto theft, forgery, theft/larceny, drug trafficking, drug possession, prostitution, stolen goods, vandalism, robbery, offensive touching, rape, assault, homicide, weapons, and arson. For each category, participants were asked if they ever committed an offense in the category (regardless of whether they were arrested) during their lifetime and in the 30 days prior to the arrest that resulted in their current probation. A second group of items measured arrest and incarceration history. Specifically, participants reported whether they were arrested as a juvenile, incarcerated as a juvenile, and also reported the total number of times that they had been arrested in their lifetime. A final item asked whether participants had ever been arrested for DUI. This item was used to create the groups described below.
Analytic Plan
Participants were divided into three groups based on self-reported DUI arrests: probationers who had never been arrested for DUI (n = 437), arrested once for DUI (n = 143), or arrested multiple (i.e., two or more) times for DUI (n = 219). One participant could not be categorized due to missing data, thus a total of 799 participants were used for analysis. Before comparing substance use and criminal activity across these three groups, the demographic composition of the groups were examined to identify any pre-existing differences which may influence rates of substance use and criminal history. As noted below, groups significantly differed in gender composition and average age, so these variables were used as covariates in subsequent analyses. Dichotomous substance use and criminal history variables were examined with logistic regression, and odds ratios adjusted for gender and ages were computed. The two continuous criminal activity variables (number of lifetime arrests and number of adult incarcerations) were analyzed using analysis of covariance.
Results
Demographics
Participants with a single DUI arrest or multiple DUI arrests were more likely to be male than were participants with no DUI arrest (73.4%, 85.8%, and 54.5%, respectively; see Table 1). Probationers with a single DUI arrest (M = 33.9, SD = 10.9) or multiple DUI arrests (M = 37.2, SD = 9.0) were significantly older than those with no DUI arrests (M = 31.9, SD = 10.5), F(2, 796) = 19.78, p < .001. The three groups did not statistically differ with respect to race, marital status, number of children, or percentage of high school completion. Because significant differences in gender and age existed between the three groups, these variables were controlled for in subsequent analyses.
Table 1.
Demographic Information by DUI Arrests
| DUI Arrests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| None (n=437) |
Single (n=143) |
Multiple (n=219) |
|
| 31.9 | 33.9 | 37.2 | |
| Gender (% male)*** | 54.5 | 73.4 | 85.8 |
| White (%) | 93.6 | 95.8 | 97.7 |
| Married (%) | 23.6 | 22.4 | 21.5 |
| Education (% diploma or GED) | 67.3 | 63.6 | 58.4 |
| Number of Children | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.7 |
Note.
p ≤ .001
Substance Use
After statistically controlling for age and gender, having one or more lifetime arrests for DUI was significantly associated with lifetime use of alcohol to intoxication, use of marijuana, crack, powder cocaine, amphetamine, other stimulants, hallucinogens, inhalants, other injection drugs, opiates, Oxycontin®, and sedatives. Probationers with past DUI arrests were also more likely to report any illicit drug use. Table 2 presents the proportion of each group that used each substance as well as adjusted odds ratios for each DUI arrest group relative to the no DUI arrest group. Substance use in the 30 days prior to the arrest for which participants were on probation was also compared across the three groups (see Table 3). DUI arrests were significantly associated with the use of alcohol, alcohol to intoxication, crack, powder cocaine, other stimulants, opiates, and sedatives. Similar to lifetime use, DUI arrests were again positively associated with the overall measure of any illicit drug use.
Table 2.
Lifetime Substance Use by DUI Arrests
| DUI Arrests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| None (n=437) |
Single (n=143) |
Multiple (n=219) |
|
| Alcohol | 95.7 | 99.3 | 98.6 |
| Alcohol to Intoxication | 91.1 | 97.2 (3.2)* | 99.5 (20.3)**, a |
| Marijuana | 85.1 | 93.0 (3.3)** | 95.4 (6.5)*** |
| Crack | 38.2 | 56.6 (2.4)*** | 62.1 (3.6)*** |
| Cocaine | 53.3 | 69.9 (2.4)*** | 77.2 (4.1)*** |
| Heroin | 9.6 | 9.8 | 16.0 |
| Amphetamine | 7.3 | 6.3 | 14.2 (2.3)** |
| Other Stimulants | 41.2 | 54.5 (1.9)** | 67.1 (3.6)*** |
| PCP | 8.9 | 12.6 | 16.4 |
| Other Hallucinogens | 49.4 | 61.9 (1.7)** | 70.8 (2.9)*** |
| Inhalants | 18.8 | 28.0 (1.7)* | 31.5 (2.2)*** |
| Opiates | 54.2 | 62.2 (1.7)* | 68.5 (2.7)*** |
| Oxycontin® | 38.0 | 51.0 (2.0)** | 52.1 (12.6)*** |
| Sedatives | 52.2 | 72.0 (3.0)*** | 72.6 (3.7)*** |
| Any Other Injected Drug | 7.3 | 11.9 (1.9)* | 17.8 (3.4)*** |
| Any Illicit | 86.5 | 94.4 (3.8)** | 96.8 (8.6)*** |
Note.
p ≤ .05,
p ≤ .01,
p ≤ .001.
Statistically significant odds ratios adjusted for age and gender appear in parentheses for the single and multiple DUI arrest groups and are in relation to the “None” group.
Because only 1 person with multiple DUI arrests reported never drinking alcohol to intoxication, the adjusted odds ratio is inflated and should be interpreted with caution.
Table 3.
Substance Use in the 30 Days Prior to Arrest by DUI Arrests
| DUI Arrests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| None (n=437) |
Single (n=143) |
Multiple (n=219) |
|
| Alcohol | 46.9 | 63.6 (2.2)*** | 71.7 (3.6)*** |
| Alcohol to Intoxication | 36.4 | 54.5 (2.4)*** | 60.7 (3.8)*** |
| Marijuana | 52.2 | 54.5 | 53.4 |
| Crack | 14.0 | 23.1 (2.1)** | 19.2 (2.0)** |
| Cocaine | 8.7 | 12.6 | 12.3 (2.2)** |
| Heroin | 1.6 | 2.1 | 0.9 |
| Amphetamine | 2.5 | 2.8 | 2.3 |
| Other Stimulants | 14.6 | 21.7 (1.8)* | 22.8 (2.4)*** |
| PCP | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 |
| Other Hallucinogens | 5.7 | 9.8 | 4.1 |
| Inhalants | 0.9 | 2.1 | 0.0 |
| Opiates | 32.5 | 44.8 (2.0)*** | 36.5 (1.7)*** |
| Oxycontin® | 20.8 | 22.4 | 23.7 (1.6)* |
| Sedatives | 29.1 | 45.5 (2.5)*** | 40.6 (2.5)*** |
| Any Other Injected Drug | 3.9 | 4.9 | 4.1 |
| Any Illicit | 65.2 | 71.3 (1.6)* | 74.9 (2.4)*** |
Note.
p ≤ .05,
p ≤ .01,
p ≤ .001.
Statistically significant odds ratios adjusted for age and gender appear in parentheses for the single and multiple DUI arrest groups and are in relation to the “None” group.
Criminal Activity
When statistically controlling for age and gender, probationers with at least one DUI arrest reported more criminal activity than probationers with no history of DUI arrests. Specifically, DUI offenders were more likely to have been arrested as a juvenile and more likely to have been incarcerated as a juvenile. Furthermore, single DUI offenders (M = 8.3, SD = 13.1) and multiple DUI offenders (M = 20.0, SD = 23.9) reported significantly more lifetime arrests than non-DUI offenders (M = 5.2, SD = 9.7), F(2, 794) = 49.62, p < .001. This larger number of arrests led to a significantly larger number of adult incarcerations for single and multiple DUI offenders (M = 4.2, SD = 6.6 and M = 12.7, SD = 18.1, respectively) compared to probationers without a DUI arrest (M = 2.8, SD = 8.2), F(2, 790) = 42.89, p < .001. In addition, having a DUI arrest was positively related to committing motor vehicle theft, drug trafficking, drug possession, assault, and weapons possession. Probationers with multiple DUI arrests were less likely to have committed rape (see Table 4). As with substance use, criminal activity was also examined for the 30 day period prior to the crime for which they were serving probation. Only two differences between the three groups emerged: weapons possession and drug possession, both positively related to DUI arrests (see Table 5).
Table 4.
Lifetime Criminal Activity by DUI Arrests
| DUI Arrests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| None (n=437) |
Single (n=143) |
Multiple (n=219) |
|
| Shoplifting | 52.5 | 49.7 | 48.9 |
| Burglary | 24.9 | 28.0 | 30.1 |
| Auto Theft | 8.0 | 12.6 | 17.8 (3.0)*** |
| Forgery | 38.4 | 35.7 | 32.9 |
| Theft/Larceny | 16.7 | 15.4 | 16.0 |
| Drug Trafficking | 49.2 | 56.6 | 64.4 (1.8)*** |
| Drug Possession | 85.1 | 93.0 (2.9)** | 94.5 (4.5)*** |
| Prostitution | 5.5 | 1.4 | 8.7 |
| Stolen Goods | 31.6 | 32.9 | 37.9 (1.5)* |
| Vandalism | 21.1 | 26.6 | 21.9 |
| Robbery | 6.6 | 7.7 | 5.5 |
| Offensive Touching | 1.8 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
| Rape | 3.2 | 3.5 | 0.9 (0.2)* |
| Assault | 32.0 | 35.7 | 53.0 (2.2)*** |
| Homicide | 1.1 | 0.7 | 3.7 |
| Weapons Possession | 17.6 | 22.4 | 32.4 (1.8)** |
| Arson | 5.0 | 7.0 | 5.5 |
Note.
p ≤ .05,
p ≤ .01,
p ≤ .001.
Statistically significant odds ratios adjusted for age and gender appear in parentheses for the single and multiple DUI arrest groups and are in relation to the “None” group.
Table 5.
Criminal Activity in the 30 days prior to arrest by DUI arrests
| DUI Arrests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| None (n=437) |
Single (n=143) |
Multiple (n=219) |
|
| Shoplifting | 10.8 | 11.2 | 4.1 |
| Burglary | 8.5 | 9.8 | 3.7 |
| Auto Theft | 0.9 | 0.7 | 2.3 |
| Forgery | 14.9 | 11.2 | 7.8 |
| Theft/Larceny | 6.9 | 4.9 | 1.8 |
| Drug Trafficking | 31.6 | 30.1 | 32.4 |
| Drug Possession | 63.2 | 67.8 | 70.3 (1.8)** |
| Prostitution | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 |
| Stolen Goods | 16.0 | 14.7 | 13.2 |
| Vandalism | 4.8 | 2.8 | 4.1 |
| Robbery | 2.3 | 2.8 | 0.5 |
| Offensive Touching | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 |
| Rape | 1.1 | 1.4 | 0.5 |
| Assault | 9.2 | 10.5 | 6.4 |
| Homicide | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.4 |
| Weapons Possession | 8.5 | 11.2 | 15.1 (2.0)** |
| Arson | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
Note.
p ≤ .05,
p ≤ .01,
p ≤ .001.
Statistically significant odds ratios adjusted for age and gender appear in parentheses for the single and multiple DUI arrest groups and are in relation to the “None” group.
Discussion
The present study examined whether ever being arrested for DUI was associated with higher levels of substance use and criminal activity in a sample of rural felony probationers. Overall, probationers who had been arrested for DUI were more likely to have used drugs than probationers with no DUI arrest history. DUI offenders, particularly those with multiple DUI arrests, were also more likely to have committed several of the individual crimes for which data were collected. These findings add to the literature in several important ways.
First, these data provide a unique and detailed description of the substances used by DUI offenders relative to other offenders. Alcohol use is most associated with DUI populations; however, it is clear from the current study that DUI offenders use a variety of illicit drugs as well. This finding with a rural sample of DUI offenders is consistent with other studies which have examined drug use among DUI offenders in metropolitan areas (e.g., Lapham, C’de Baca, Chang, Hunt, & Berger, 2002) and in national samples (Maruschak, 1999). As expected, probationers who had a DUI arrest were significantly more likely to have used illicit drugs in their lifetime and in the 30 days prior to their arrest than non-DUI offenders. In fact, other than for a few illicit drugs that have extremely low prevalence rates in the geographic area from which participants were recruited (Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, 2005), DUI offenders consistently reported higher rates of illicit drug use than non-DUI offenders for both lifetime and 30 day use. Although no differences in the lifetime use of alcohol were found between the three groups of rural probationers, those with at least one DUI arrest were significantly more likely to have used alcohol to the point of intoxication as compared to those without a DUI arrest.
In addition to providing new information on the substance use of DUI offenders relative to other offenders, a contribution of the current study is its examination of criminal behaviors among DUI offenders. Specifically, it was predicted that DUI offenders would have higher rates of criminal behavior. Some support was found for this expectation. Probationers with a DUI arrest were more likely to illegally possess drugs than non-DUI offenders, and probationers with multiple DUI arrests were more likely than non-DUI offenders to have committed auto theft, drug trafficking, assault, and illegal weapons possession. Drug possession and illegal weapons possession were also significantly more prominent among the multiple DUI arrest group for the 30 day period before their most recent arrest. Single and multiple DUI offenders were also more likely to have a juvenile arrest history and reported significantly more lifetime arrests and adult incarcerations than non-DUI offenders. Despite these differences, no differences were found between the three probationer groups for the majority of criminal activity categories. Perhaps participants were less likely to report on criminal behaviors, especially recent criminal activity, because they were currently under correctional supervision and concerned about further sanctions although measures to ensure and preserve confidentiality were utilized. Although only a few differences were found for the types of crimes committed, the present study provides new information on the breadth of criminal activity in this population. Most previous research on criminal activity among DUI offenders has been limited to examining only arrests rather than looking at all criminal behavior regardless of arrest (e.g., LaBrie et al., 2007).
In general, multiple DUI offenders reported substance use rates similar to single DUI offenders; however, multiple DUI offenders were more criminally-involved than probationers with a single DUI arrest. One possible reason for this finding could be that offenders with multiple DUI arrests had more intense drug and alcohol problems than single DUI offenders. More severe substance problems have been shown in other studies to be related to a greater diversity in criminal activity (Farabee et al., 2001). The present study, however, focused on whether a substance had been used, not on how much of a substance was used. It is also interesting to note that many of the criminal activities for which the multiple DUI arrest group committed at higher rates directly relate to drugs (drug possession and drug trafficking) and violence (assault and weapons possession). Greater substance problem severity may account for these differences as well.
An additional contribution of this study is its focus on an understudied population of rural DUI offenders. As previously noted, there is evidence that DUI arrest rates are higher in less populated areas of the country (FBI, 2004). One explanation for this higher rate may be that impaired drivers are on the road for longer periods of time in rural areas because of the greater average distances between locations, including places where alcohol is consumed. The lack of public transportation options may also account for higher DUI arrest rates. Regardless, more research on rural DUI offenders is warranted given the higher arrest rates.
Findings from this study suggest that having a DUI arrest may be a marker for higher levels of substance use and criminal behavior among rural probationers and, perhaps, for other offenders. This finding could help criminal justice administrators to identify individuals who could benefit from substance abuse treatment. The increase in the criminal justice population in recent years is largely attributable to substance use which includes those arrested for DUI. An opportune time to intervene with drug and alcohol problems is when a person is involved in the criminal justice system because treatment compliance is often less problematic (Leukefeld, Staton, Webster, & Smiley McDonald, 2005). Identifying and appropriately treating drug and alcohol problems during criminal justice involvement can have long-term implications for reducing recidivism.
Knowing that an offender has been arrested for DUI may also be useful in identifying persons with more extensive criminal activity. The present study found that, after controlling for age and gender, rural DUI offenders were more likely to have a juvenile criminal record and to have more lifetime arrests and adult incarcerations. As previously mentioned, auto theft, drug trafficking and possession, assault, and illegal weapons possession were also more prevalent among multiple DUI offenders. This information could also be helpful when defining conditions of probation and alerting probation officers to potential problem areas that should be more closely monitored for probationers with a history of DUI. In fact, the recently released Guidelines for Community Supervision of DWI Offenders (American Probation and Parole Association, 2008) stress the importance of collecting comprehensive criminal and substance abuse histories before developing supervision plans for convicted DUI offenders. The guidelines also provide suggestions for creating valuable partnerships and staff trainings to increase the effectiveness of the community supervision of this offender population.
The results from the present research have implications for substance abuse treatment providers as well. Study findings highlight the fact that DUI offenders, as well as the vast majority of non DUI offenders, in a probationer population use substances other than alcohol and underscore the need for careful, thorough assessment of drug and alcohol problems. Failing to appropriately address problems with alcohol and drugs in could put clients at risk for continued criminal involvement. Study findings also suggest that substance abuse treatment providers should take into account that many DUI offenders participate in an extensive array of criminal activities and, therefore, treatment plans should address not only substance abuse problems but also the criminal lifestyles which may accompany their drug and alcohol use.
Despite the present study’s contributions to the literature and implications for criminal justice and substance abuse professionals, this research has limitations. First, the generalizability of study findings to other DUI offender populations is not known. Only felony probationers from rural Kentucky were included in this study and, therefore, participants may not be representative of all rural DUI offenders. Although almost 20% of probationers enter probation as a result of a DUI offense (Glaze & Palla, 2004), the DUI offenders studied in this sample may represent a more criminally-involved group of individuals than DUI offenders who are not placed on probation. Furthermore, over 95% of the participants were white. While this is consistent with the geographic region, results may differ for more racially diverse probationers.
In addition, the cross-sectional study design does not allow for the examination of causal or temporal relations among the variables. Another limitation is that the data were self-reported which may raise concerns about accuracy and veridicality. Nevertheless, it is clear from the larger study for which these data were collected that participants were willing to report on several sensitive topics including substance use, health, sexual behaviors, and criminal activity. The present study cannot account for differences among probationers which may have put them at greater risk for being arrested for DUI. For example, individual-level variables such as alcohol tolerance and community-level variables such as policing practices may influence the likelihood of being detected when driving impaired. Finally, participants were grouped according to the number of times they had been arrested for DUI in their lifetime; how recently these arrests occurred were not factored into the analyses.
The present study points to several directions for future research. First, subsequent studies should examine the temporal relations of substance use, DUI, and other criminal activity, as well as when these behaviors occur in relation to sentencing. A better understanding of how a DUI fits into a person’s substance use and other criminal history may provide valuable information which could be used to identify and target persons for DUI prevention programs. For example, does a first DUI arrest tend to precede other criminal activity, or do certain patterns of substance use and criminal activity make a first DUI arrest more likely? The answers to these and similar questions would have implications for prevention programs would be designed. Second, thorough substance use and criminal histories should be examined in other DUI populations, including those who are incarcerated or enrolled in specialized diversion programs such as drug and DUI courts. The sample for the current research consisted solely of probationers and, therefore, may have characteristics that differ from other offender populations. Finally, more research on DUI offenders in rural areas is needed, including studies focusing on repeat offenders. Reducing DUI recidivism in less populated areas may face a different set of challenges than those faced in urban areas. For instance, limited availability of substance abuse treatment services in rural areas may greatly hinder community efforts to reduce DUI recidivism. Future research examining issues such as these will help broaden our understanding of impaired driving and can eventually lead to more effective strategies to reduce the incidence of DUI.
References
- Probation American and Association Parole (2008). Guidelines for Community Supervision of DWI Offenders, retrieved from www.appa-net.org.
- Argeriou M, McCarty D, & Blacker E (1985). Criminality among individuals arraigned for drinking and driving in Massachusetts. Journal of studies on alcohol, 46(6), 525–530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Beerman KA, Smith MM, & Hall RL (1988). Predictors of recidivism in DUIIs. Journal of studies on alcohol, 49(5), 443–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- C’ de Baca J, Miller WR, & Lapham S (2001). A multiple risk factor approach for predicting DWI recidivism. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 21(4), 207–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Center on Drug and Alcohol Research (2005).Kentucky Needs assessment project 2004 adult household survey report, University of Kentucky. [Google Scholar]
- Chaiken MR (1986). Crime rates and substance abuse among types of offenders. Crime rates among drug-abusing offenders: Final report to the National Institute of Justice. Narcotic and Drug Research, New York: pp. 12–54. [Google Scholar]
- Cherpitel CJ, & Bond J (2003). DUI recidivism: A comparison of Mexican Americans and whites in a northern California county. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 963–969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Donnermeyer JF (1992). The use of alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs by rural adolescents: A review of recent research. Drugs and Society, 7(1–2), 31–75. [Google Scholar]
- Farabee D, Joshi V & Anglin M (2001). Addiction careers and criminal specialization. Crime and Delinquency. 47, 196–220. [Google Scholar]
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004). Uniform Crime Report 2003, retrieved from www.fbi.gov.
- Glaze L & Palla S 2004, Probation and parole in the United States, 2003. (NCJ Publication No.205336). U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
- Greenfield TK, & Weisner C (1995). Drinking problems and self-reported criminal behavior, arrests and convictions: 1990 U.S. alcohol and 1989 county surveys. Addiction, 90(3), 361–374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herz DC, & Murray R (2003). Exploring arrestee drug use in rural Nebraska. Journal of Drug Issues, 33(1), 99–118. [Google Scholar]
- Inciardi J, & Martin S (1990). Criminal Involvement Instrument. Newark: DE, Author. [Google Scholar]
- LaBrie RA, Kidman RC, Albanese M, Peller AJ, & Shaffer HJ (2007). Criminality and continued DUI offense: Criminal typologies and recidivism among repeat offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(4), 603–614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lapham SC, C’de Baca J, Chang I, Hunt WC, & Berger LR (2002). Are drunk-driving offenders referred for screening accurately reporting their drug use? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66(3), 243–253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Leukefeld C, Clayton RR, & Myers JA (1992). Rural drug and alcohol treatment. Drugs and Society, 7(1–2), 95–116. [Google Scholar]
- Leukefeld C, Narevic E, Hiller M, Staton M, Logan T, Gillespie W et al. (2002). Alcohol and drug use among rural and urban incarcerated substance abusers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(6), 715 – 728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Leukefeld C, Smiley McDonald H, Mateyoke-Scrivner A, Roberto H, Walker R Webster M et al. (2005). Prescription drug use, health services utilization and health problems in rural Eastern Kentucky. Journal of Drug Issues, 35(3), 631–644. [Google Scholar]
- Leukefeld C, Staton M, Webster JM, & Smiley McDonald H (2005). Treatment of patients under legal restrictions. In Strain EC & Stitzer ML (Eds.), The treatment of opioid dependence (pp. 485–496). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Martin SE (2001). The links between alcohol, crime, and the criminal justice system: Explanations, evidence, and interventions. American Journal on Addictions, 10, 136–158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Maruschak L (1999). DWI offenders under correctional supervision. (NCJ Publication No.172212). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice. [Google Scholar]
- McBride D, & McCoy CB (1992). The drugs-crime relationship: An analytical framework. The Prison Journal, 73, 257–278. [Google Scholar]
- McLellan AT, Luborsky L, O’Brien CP, & Woody GE (1980). An improved evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients: The addiction severity index. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168, 26–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (2004). Traffic safety facts: 2003 data. (DOT HS 809 761). U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
- National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (2005). 2004 annual assessment of motor vehicle crashes. (DOT HS 809 923). U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (1997). Rural substance abuse: State of knowledge and issues. (NIH Publication No. 97–4177). National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD. [Google Scholar]
- Nochajski TH, Miller BA, Wieczorek WF, & Whitney R (1993). The effects of a drinker-driver treatment program: Does criminal history make a difference? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(2), 174–189. [Google Scholar]
- Schoeneberger ML, Leukefeld CG, Hiller ML, & Godlaski T (2006). Substance abuse among rural and very rural drug users at treatment entry. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 32(1), 87–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Siegal HA, Li L, Leviton LC, Cole PA, Hook EW, Bachmann L et al. (1999). Under the influence: Risky sexual behavior and substance abuse among driving under the influence offenders. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 26, 87–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Simons JS, Oliver MNI, Gaher RM, Ebel G, & Brummels P (2005). Methamphetamine and alcohol abuse and dependence symptoms: Associations with affect lability and impulsivity in a rural treatment population. Addictive Behaviors, 30(7), 1370–1381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tunnell KD (2005). The OxyContin epidemic and crime panic in rural Kentucky. Contemporary Drug Problems, 32(2), 225–258. [Google Scholar]
- Wells Parker E, Cosby PJ, & Landrum JW (1986). A typology for drinking driving offenders: Methods for classification and policy implications. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18(6), 443–453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]