Table 2.

Bivariate association of alcohol-impaired driving enforcement strategies by agency/jurisdiction characteristics among state patrol agencies (n=48)

	Sobriety checkpoints		Open container enforcement		Enforcement index
	% (n)	p	% (n)	p	% (n)	p1
State population
< 5 million	76.0 (19)	0.80	50.0 (13)	0.34	92.2 (24)	0.14
≥ 5 million	72.7 (16)		36.4 (8)		77.3 (17)
Number of fulltime agents per 1,000,000 population
< 200	68.0 (17)	0.28	42.3 (11)	0.83	80.8 (21)	0.32
≥ 200	81.8 (18)		45.5 (10)		90.9 (20)
Proportion black
< 7%	56.5 (13)	0.006*	50.0 (12)	0.38	79.2 (19)	0.22
≥ 7%	91.7 (22)		37.5 (9)		91.7 (22)
Proportion in poverty
< 13%	66.7 (16)	0.21	45.8 (11)	0.77	79.2 (19)	0.22
≥ 13%	82.6 (19)		41.7 (10)		91.7 (22)
Proportion of population aged 15–30 years
<22.1%	77.3 (17)	0.68	34.8 (8)	0.23	91.3 (21)	0.27
≥22.1%	72.0 (18)		52.0 (13)		80.0 (20)
How common is drinking & driving in the state
Not/somewhat common	85.7 (24)	0.03*	55.2 (16)	0.12	96.6 (28)	0.009*
Very common	56.3 (9)		31.3 (5)		68.8 (11)
Resources devoted to drinking & driving enforcement
≤ 25%	85.7 (12)	0.13	50.0 (7)	0.83	92.9 (13)	0.24
>25%	63.0 (17)		46.4 (13)		78.6 (22)
Region
Wet (North Central/New England)	55.0 (11)	0.02*	45.0 (9)	0.60	80.0 (16)	0.29
Moderate (Mid-Atlantic, Pacific, South Coast)	81.3 (13)		35.3 (6)		82.4 (14)
Dry (South)	100.0 (11)		54.6 (6)		100.0 (11)

^*p<.05

Note: we do not include saturation patrols in table because 96% of agencies conduct these and hence, chi-square analyses were not valid.