Table 3.
Bivariate and multivariable association of alcohol-impaired driving enforcement strategies by agency/jurisdiction characteristics among local law enforcement agencies (n=1,043)
|
|
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sobriety Checkpoints | Saturation Patrols | Open Container Enforcement | Enforcement Index | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| % (n)1 | Odds Ratio (95% CI)2 | % (n)1 | Odds Ratio (95% CI)2 | % (n)1 | Odds Ratio (95% CI)2 | % (n)1 | Odds Ratio (95% CI)2 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Population of jurisdiction | ||||||||
| < 8500 | 34.5 (154)* | Referent | 59.3 (275)* | Referent | 43.5 (225) | 42.2 (219)* | Referent | |
| ≥ 8500 | 53.3 (245) | 2.0 (1.4–2.9)* | 72.4 (346) | 1.3 (0.9–1.8) | 42.4 (221) | 54.4 (524) | 1.2 (0.9–1.6) | |
| Number of full-time officers per 1000 population | ||||||||
| < 1.9 | 41.5 (189) | 66.8 (320) | 39.9 (208)* | Referent | 46.5 (243) | |||
| ≥ 1.9 | 46.6 (210) | 65.0 (301) | 46.0 (238) | 1.3 (1.0–1.7) | 50.2 (261) | |||
| Has division specifically to enforce alcohol laws | ||||||||
| No | 42.0 (344)* | Referent | 64.1 (547)* | Referent | 41.4 (389)* | Referent | 67.3 (64)* | Referent |
| Yes | 63.9 (53) | 1.4 (0.7–2.7) | 83.5 (71) | 0.9 (0.5–1.9) | 59.1 (55) | 1.2 (0.7–2.0) | 46.5 (438) | 1.1 (0.6–1.8) |
| Has officer assigned to alcohol enforcement | ||||||||
| No | 39.4 (264)* | Referent | 59.5 (410)* | Referent | 36.8 (280)* | Referent | 64.5 (180)* | Referent |
| Yes | 57.2 (135) | 2.2 (1.4–3.4)* | 83.4 (211) | 3.4 (2.2–5.3)* | 59.7 (166) | 2.5 (1.8–3.5)* | 42.4 (324) | 2.7 (1.9–3.9)* |
| Proportion black | ||||||||
| < 1.6% | 33.9 (144)* | Referent | 62.1 (288)* | Referent | 42.7 (220) | 40.6 (210)* | Referent | |
| ≥ 1.6% | 54.5 (255) | 1.3 (0.8–1.9) | 69.8 (333) | 1.3 (0.9–1.9) | 43.2 (226) | 55.9 (526) | 1.4 (1.0–2.0) | |
| Proportion in poverty | ||||||||
| < 14% | 40.7 (183) | 66.1 (318) | 40.5 (214) | 44.9 (239)* | Referent | |||
| ≥ 14% | 47.4 (216) | 65.7 (303) | 45.6 (232) | 51.9 (265) | 1.1 (0.8–1.5) | |||
| Proportion aged 15–30 | ||||||||
| < 20.3% | 37.9 (168)* | Referent | 61.2 (286)* | Referent | 43.2 (223) | 44.1 (229)* | Referent | |
| ≥ 20.3% | 49.9 (231) | 1.2 (0.9–1.8) | 70.5 (335) | 1.3 (0.9–1.8) | 42.7 (223) | 52.5 (275) | 1.1 (0.8–1.5) | |
| How common is drinking & driving in the jurisdiction | ||||||||
| Not/somewhat common | 41.6 (261)* | Referent | 61.5 (403)* | Referent | 39.8 (290)* | Referent | 43.5 (319)* | Referent |
| Very common | 48.9 (131) | 1.3 (0.8–1.9) | 75.4 (209) | 2.0 (1.3–2.9)* | 49.5 (148) | 1.4 (1.1–1.9)* | 58.9 (176) | 2.0 (1.5–2.8)* |
| Resources devoted to drinking & driving enforcement | ||||||||
| Don’t work on this/1–10% | 40.3 (199)* | Referent | 60.4 (311)* | Referent | 40.8 (225) | 46.0 (254) | ||
| Over 10% | 48.3 (185) | 1.5 (1.1–2.2)* | 71.2 (282) | 1.4 (1.0–2.0)* | 45.1 (204) | 50.4 (230) | ||
| Region | ||||||||
| Wet (North Central/New England) | 25.8 (90)* | 0.3 (0.1–0.7)* | 61.1 (231)* | 0.5 (0.2–1.0) | 42.1 (176)* | 0.7 (0.5–1.1) | 37.3 (156)* | 0.4 (0.2–0.7) |
| Moderate (Mid-Atlantic, Pacific, South Coast) | 46.9 (149) | 0.5 (0.2–1.1) | 66.6 (215) | 0.7 (0.3–1.6) | 38.5 (135) | 0.6 (0.4–0.9)* | 49.3 (175) | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) |
| Dry (South) | 67.0 (160) | Referent | 72.6 (175) | Referent | 50.2 (135) | Referent | 64.1 (173) | Referent |
| Strategy used at the state level | ||||||||
| Yes | 56.9 (361)* | 11.2 (4.8–26.0)* | 66.3 (575) | 44.9 (183) | 52.3 (430)* | 2.3 (1.2–4.4)* | ||
| No | 9.6 (23) | Referent | 60.8 (31) | 40.8 (247) | 29.1 (57) | Referent | ||
*
p<.05
1
Data indicate the percentage (n) of agencies at each level of the variable that conduct the particular enforcement strategy
2
Odds ratio and confidence intervals (CI) are from multivariate logistic regression models that included all variables significant in bivariate analyses (p<.05)