Return to the VTRC Home Page
Click here to print the printer friendly version of this page.
 
Page Title: VTRC Report Detail

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Any inclusion of manufacturer names, trade names, or trademarks is for identification purposes only and is not to be considered an endorsement.

Title:

An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Rehabilitation Countermeasure of the Fairfax Alcohol Safety Action Project, 1973: Final Report
Authors:
Cheryl W. Lynn
Year: 1974
VTRC No.: 75-R17
Abstract: The purpose of this report is to summarize rehabilitation activities within the Fairfax ASAP during 1973 and to evaluate treatment effectiveness as reflected in rates of recidivism during the second year of the project. Treatment modalities and sub-modalities available in the community are described and basic system operation diagrammed. Recidivism data were collected from ASAP files, along with demographic data for all recidivists. Occurrences of recidivism were arrayed by quarter of initial entry into the system and quarter of first recidivist arrest. Simple rates of recidivism were computed and weighted by exposure time to yield a true annual rate of recidivism (TAR) for each drinker type and for each modality or combination of modalities. (TAR's were adjudged to be the least biased estimate of rearrest activity, since they control for at least one of the many variables influencing the probability of a second driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrest.) Among social drinkers, the Driver Improvement School (DIS) had the highest TAR of 1.94%, followed by the Fairfax Alcohol Community Education (FACE) program, the Fairfax-Falls Church Mental Health Center (FFCMHC) and the DIS/FACE combination, each experiencing no recidivism. These differences were not significant. Among problem drinkers the CACC/FFCMHC experienced the highest TAR of 16.33% followed by the FACE with 13.11%, the Community Alcohol Center Clinic (CACC) with 11.69%, the CACC/FACE combination with 9.64%, the CACC/ FACE/FFCMHC combination with 4.39%, the group not attending scheduled treatment with 3.08% and the DIS/FACE combination which experienced no recidivism The differences between the three highest rates-and that of the DIS/FACE were significant. The others were not. Among pre-problem drinkers, the FFCMHC had the highest rate of 24.24%, followed by the FACE program with 9.49%, the FACE/FFCMHC combination with. 3.42%, the DIS/MHC combination with 3.33%, the DIS/FACE combination with I. 29%, and the group not attending scheduled treatment, which experienced, no recidivism. The difference between the highest and lowest recidivism groups was significant while other differences were not. It was also determined that there was no correlation between the average amount of time between initial arrest and entry into treatment for defendants attending a modality and recidivism rates for that modality. Most significant differences between recidivists and non-recidivists or demographic variables were not alcohol related but rather arrest related. Differences existed in those variables which would increase the subjects' 'visibility" in terms of enforcement and thus increase the probability of a subsequent arrest.