A Phenomenological Approach to Assessing a DUI/DWI Program

Abstract

In an effort to find a more proactive solution to the problem of drunk driving, a midwestern city has implemented a Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Impaired (DUI/DWI) Court program, a derivative of the popular drug courts. Eligible participants are those who have had two or more drunk-driving offenses but who have not been convicted of a violent offense. Participants volunteer for a 36-week program in exchange for a suspension of their prison sentence. Program elements include drug/alcohol monitoring, support groups, counseling, and extensive supervision. Using a phenomenological approach, this article describes the challenges faced by 20 participants, how they navigated the program requirements, their key realizations about their conditions, and their views on the viability and effectiveness of the program. The article uses qualitative interviews of participants and stakeholders collected for a process evaluation of the DUI program, and official records collected for programming purposes. Findings from this research can be used broadly for programming purposes and can be used by other court jurisdictions that are developing similar programs.

Keywords

drug court phenomenology process evaluation reintegrative shaming deterrence

Introduction

Despite recent successes of major campaigns to reduce drunk driving (Clapp et al., 2005; McCartt, Hellinga, & Wells, 2009; Saltz, Welker, Paschall, Feeney, & Fabiano, 2009; Vegega, 2008), the injuries and deaths associated with drunk driving remain a key concern for most U.S. cities (Chou et al., 2006; Coben & Larkin, 1999). In 2008, 11,773 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes, which accounted for one third of all highway deaths for that year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010). It was also reported that of the 1,347 traffic fatalities among children ages 0 to 14 years, 16% involved a driver who was alcohol impaired (CDC, 2010). Indeed, epidemiological studies show that alcohol weakens the ability of drivers to divide attention, one of the skills necessary for driving vehicles safely (Moskowitz & Burns, 1990; Weiler et al., 2000; West, Wilding, French, Kemp, & Irving, 1993).

Effectiveness and Limitations of Past Solutions

Various campaign strategies introduced to combat the problem of drunk driving have had different levels of successes (Anderson, Chisholm, & Fuhr, 2009; DeJong & Hingson, 1998). General deterrent efforts like increases in law enforcement (e.g., sobriety checkpoints), the passage of laws that impose stiff penalties (e.g., driver license suspensions, fines, and prison time), and mass communication campaigns that inform people of the dangers of drunk driving are generally effective but researchers find that impacts of these programs had been limited to social drinkers who are largely predisposed to behavioral change in the first place (DeJong & Hingson, 1998; Tauber & Huddleston, 1999). More problematic and posing a greater challenge are cases of repeat drunk drivers who seem undeterred by the implementation of more aggressive surveillance and the imposition of stiffer penalties (Coben & Larkin, 1999; DeJong & Hingson, 1998; Freeman-Wilson & Huddleston, 1999). Problem drinkers, or those who are serious and habitual abusers of alcohol, are those individuals who are more frequently involved in fatal crashes (Freeman-Wilson & Huddleston, 1999). These problem drinkers, the majority of whom are nonviolent, are generally dealt with by the criminal justice system. In this process, these cases take away resources from criminal justice agencies, clog court dockets, and occupy limited space in already overcrowded jail cells (Freeman-Wilson & Huddleston, 1999). In addition, with imprisonment often a common criminal justice response to problem drinkers, these offenders are stigmatized which further strains their capacity to lead law-abiding lives (LaBrie, Kidman, Albanese, Peller, & Shaffer, 2007). For this subpopulation of drink and drive offenders, a combination of strategies that includes intensive monitoring that recognizes their habitual drinking as a form of substance addiction may work best (Kunitz et al., 2002).

Innovative Solution for a Subset of Population

DUI or DWI Courts have been introduced in some jurisdictions to deal with the problems posed by repeat drink and drive offending. The DUI/DWI Courts are patterned after the more widely adopted Drug Courts though with modifications to fit the differing needs and circumstances of the alcohol-addicted population.¹ In the short term, DUI/DWI Courts aim to encourage alcohol sobriety and to reduce drink and drive recidivism. DUI/DWI Courts view the problem of alcohol addiction holistically. That is, DUI/DWI Courts not only deal with the offenders’ current alcohol addictions but also provide solutions to causes that led them to their alcohol addiction (Freeman-Wilson & Huddleston, 1999). DUI/DWI Courts provide multiple interventions like counseling, skills training, or behavioral monitoring, the dosage of which depends on the initial level of alcohol addiction and performance while undergoing the program. To encourage sobriety of program participants, DUI/DWI Courts tap the resources of multiple governmental and community agencies to provide services. Representatives from the court, prosecutor’s offices, and probation offices often comprise the DUI/DWI Court teams and these teams collaborate with community-based service providers for the provision of services. In the long term, DUI/DWI Courts aim to promote public safety and reduce agency costs on processing drink and drive cases. DUI/DWI Courts seek to develop expertise among criminal justice and public health professionals to deal with this specific problem population and ease the current revolving door practice where drunk drivers appear in court and are perhaps sentenced to minimal jail terms, but without the benefit of reform, will eventually relapse and likely return to the criminal justice system (Barton, 2009; Bouffard, Richardson, & Franklin, 2010; Freeman-Wilson & Huddleston, 1999; MacDonald, Morral, Raymond, & Eibner, 2007; Tauber & Huddleston, 1999).

The DUI/DWI Courts are unique criminal justice innovations that deal with the problem of repeat drink and drive offending (Freeman-Wilson & Huddleston, 1999). Like the more popular Drug Courts, DUI/DWI Courts are now gaining adherents in many jurisdictions (Barton, 2009; Ronan, Collins, & Rosky, 2009). According to the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI, 2010), there are currently at least 81 DUI/DWI Courts in operation in five states. In 249 other jurisdictions, DUI/DWI Courts are combined with Drug Courts, forming a hybrid program (NDCI, 2010).

Despite its growing popularity, there are a limited number of studies that have evaluated DUI/DWI Court programs and most have focused on program outcomes, particularly on recidivism rates. These studies generally find that participants of DUI/DWI Courts have lower recidivism rates compared with nonparticipants (Breckenridge, Winfree, Maupin, & Clason, 2000; Frank & Vegega, 2005; Lapham, Kapitula, C’de Baca, & McMillan, 2006; Solop, Wonders, Hagen, & McCarrier, 2003). In particular, Lapham and colleagues evaluated the DUI Intensive Supervision Program (DISP) in Multomah County, Oregon, using an experimental design. They found that those assigned to the DISP program had lower arrest rates for driving while revoked/suspended and for all other traffic offenses compared with those assigned in traditional court processes (Lapham et al., 2006). Some studies also find that operating the DUI/DWI Courts are less costly than the traditional approaches (Frank & Vegega, 2005; Lapham et al., 2006). To date, only one study reported a contrary result. This study employed a 2-year field experiment to evaluate the DUI Court in Rio Hondo in Los Angeles County, California (MacDonald et al., 2007). The study used interviews to assess the impact of the DUI court on self-reported drunk driving behaviors, the completion of treatment, time spent in jail, alcohol use, and stressful life events. The study also employed official record checks to assess the impact of the DUI Court on subsequent arrests for DUI and other drinking-related behaviors. The authors observed few differences on any outcomes between participants in the experimental DUI Court and those assigned to the traditional court (MacDonald et al., 2007). They concluded that the DUI Court model had little additional therapeutic or public safety benefit over the traditional court process (MacDonald et al., 2007).

These studies, however, do not investigate the processes by which the DUI/DWI Courts potentially promote sobriety and reduce recidivism. Also, most DUI/DWI program evaluations use official court records in evaluating the levels of involvement among participants. While definitely helpful, official records may miss some of the nuances in program delivery, particularly in how participants react toward and view different types of programming schemes. To date, we have not encountered a study that qualitatively investigated the perceptions of the participants. In addition, although there have been a number of studies completed about Drug Court programs and many have examined processes of Drug Courts, findings from these studies are not necessarily generalizable to DUI/DWI clients due to the differing circumstances and needs between these subgroups (Marlowe, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003). Finally, like all innovations in the field of criminal justice, DUI/DWI Courts can have potential unintended consequences. The intrusive and paternalistic nature of rehabilitation programs and the rigidity and stiffness of penalties in deterrence-oriented strategies, despite the goodness of intentions, may result in unintended consequences that hinder the program from achieving its goals (Kovandzic, Sloan, & Vieraitis, 2002; McKelvey, 1977; Tonry, 2009). Planners and administrators should be cognizant of the presence of these unforeseen consequences for future improvements in the design and implementation of programs (Marlowe et al., 2003; Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). To unearth these unforeseen events, one must pay attention to the details of the lived experiences of those who actually underwent the program (Gerbert et al., 1997; Lapham & England-Kennedy, 2011).

The Current Research

This article reports part of process evaluation results conducted on a DUI/DWI program in a midwestern city. To address the lack of evaluation studies that employed qualitative methods, part of the process evaluation used a phenomenological approach to understand the lived experiences of participants who underwent the program. A phenomenological approach is appropriate for our current purposes for the following reasons: First, we want to understand how participants are impacted by the program by knowing the epiphanies and trajectories that they experienced (Denzin, 2001; Mohr, 1997). Epiphanies and trajectories are key realizations from lived experiences that fundamentally alter and contour a person’s life (Creswell, 2008; Denzin, 2001; Mohr, 1997). Knowing how participants experienced the different program components, the challenges they encountered, and the coping strategies they employed is helpful to better understand how participants gave meaning to their experiences. These will then provide a better context in assessing the effects and consequences of particular interventions. Second, by employing a phenomenological approach, participants are given a voice in the research process (Creswell, 2008; Denzin, 2001; Mohr, 1997). The participants are therefore empowered by identifying beneficial and not-so-beneficial practices and activities. This is important in determining potential unforeseen consequences that program organizers may not have anticipated. Finally, the phenomenological approach provides a venue for program participants to give recommendations on how the program may be improved (Creswell, 2008). These recommendations are potentially helpful to those planning to put together a DUI/DWI program or in effecting changes to current programs.

This article is organized in the following manner: First, we describe the goals, strategies, and processes of the current DUI/DWI court program. We argue that the strategies and activities of this particular DUI/DWI Court are guided by two criminological theories, namely, deterrence (Blumstein, Cohen, & Nagin, 1979; Nagin, 1978, 1998) and reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1999; Hay, 2001). Second, we describe the procedures used to gather information and the techniques employed in analyzing the data. We also report the ways we verified the validity of the survey information gathered such as by triangulating the data with other sources. Finally, we discuss our findings and conclusions and offer recommendations.

A Description of the DUI/DWI Court: Goals, Strategies, and Processes

The current DUI/DWI Court aims to promote alcohol sobriety and reduce drunk driving recidivism rates to at least 60% of its benchmark level. It also aims to integrate the efforts of local criminal justice and public health practitioners in dealing with the problem of repeat drunk driving. In its policy statement, this DUI/DWI Court aims to develop an expertise in dealing with this subpopulation of offenders to expedite the resolution of cases by at least 45 days.²

Following the general framework of DUI/DWI Courts, this DUI/DWI Court views the problem of repeat drink and drive offending as multifaceted and employs multiple and comprehensive interventions to deal with the problem. This DUI/DWI Court is guided by the principles of deterrence and reintegrative shaming in the formulation of these strategies. First, it employs a strict monitoring and supervision policy where participants report to the judge, the probation officer, and treatment providers on a regular and sustained basis. The frequency of reporting and dialogue depend on the participant’s initial level of alcohol addiction and the phase of treatment to which the participant is assigned.³ Participants are required to submit a personal journal where they record their daily activities and the things they learn for the day. The participants are also subjected to random urine and drug tests to check for alcohol use and use of other illicit substances. Should they fail in any of these and other requirements,⁴ participants are subjected to swift, certain, and proportionate sanctions. Depending on the nature and seriousness of the infraction, participants can be penalized with the imposition of additional requirements, be demoted to a lower phase of the program, have their current phase extended, or spend time in jail.

Second, the DUI/DWI Court also employs reintegrative shaming principles in its various activities. For example, input from participants is considered in the assignment of facilities. This is designed to generate ownership by participants of the rehabilitative process. Reintegrative shaming suggests that incorporating offenders’ inputs facilitate participant buy-in to the goals of the program (Braithwaite, 1999; Hay, 2001). Participants are encouraged to develop personal and trusting relationships with the DUI/DWI Court team members, service providers, and other stakeholders. The DUI/DWI Court also incorporates family members, friends, and supporters in its varying activities. These components of the program are designed to increase attachment with conventional members of society, a key principle in reintegrative shaming theory (Braithwaite, 1999; Hay, 2001). Moreover, when participants dutifully accomplish the different requirements of the program, they are rewarded with verbal praises and tokens in the court in front of their peers, their family members, and other program personnel. They can also be promoted to higher phases of the program, or, the number of program requirements may be reduced as a form of reward. On successful completion of the program, participants undergo a graduation ceremony where family members, friends, judges, court personnel, and other community supporters of the program are present. These components of the program are consistent with the reintegrative shaming principles of improving rather than spoiling an offender’s self-concept, which is a first step toward reform (Becker, 1963; Braithwaite, 1999).

In terms of processes, this DUI/DWI program is offered only to repeat offenders convicted of DUI or DWI offenses. A probation officer determines whether an offender is eligible,⁵ and, on determination, submits the recommendation to the prosecutor and the judge. Offenders must be willing to plead guilty of the offense charged against them; however, on admission to the program, their sentences are suspended. With successful completion of program requirements, the participants’ criminal records are expunged. In case of failure, however, offenders are required to serve the remainder of their prison sentences. Per the cutoff date for our study, a total of 54 participants had undergone the DUI/DWI program. Of these, 25 had completed or were about to complete the program and 29 were still active.

Information Gathering and Data Analysis

The bulk of the information used for this analysis comes from the interviews we conducted of those participants who recently completed or were near program completion at the time of our study (25 participants).⁶ Of these, we were able to interview 20 participants,⁷ 16 of whom had been discharged and 4 were still active. Of the 16 discharged, 12 successfully completed the requirements of the program, 2 absconded,⁸ 1 was noncompliant, and 1 committed a new offense (see Table 1 for demographic characteristics and eventual discharge status). We used a semistructured interview in which we asked participants how they found out about the program, their specific experiences with program requirements, their experiences with the service providers, and their opinions and experiences with the program personnel. We also asked the participants about any problems they encountered while in the program, about the things they learned, if any, and their recommendations to improve the program. Notes were taken during the interviews. These notes were then transcribed and encoded in a qualitative data analysis program, Nvivo 8.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics and Discharge Status

No.	Gender	Education	Discharge status
1	Male	11th grade	Active
2	Female	Some college	Absconded
3	Female	Some college	Active
4	Female	Some college	Successful
5	Male	HS graduate	Successful
6	Female	Some College	Noncompliant
7	Male	Graduate school	Active
8	Male	College graduate	Successful
9	Male	Some college	Successful
10	Female	HS graduate	Active
11	Male	HS graduate	Successful
12	Male	Graduate school	Successful
13	Male	Attending college	Successful
14	Male	HS graduate	Absconded
15	Male	HS graduate	Successful
16	Male	College graduate	New offense
17	Male	HS graduate	Successful
18	Male	HS graduate	Successful
19	Male	HS graduate	Successful
20	Female	HS graduate	Successful

Note: HS = high school.

In analyzing the data, our first step was to read the 20 interview texts to develop an overall understanding of the narratives of the participants. In doing this, all significant expressions, phrases, or words that were relevant to the experiences of the participants were highlighted. Next, we combined overlapping expressions, phrases, and words to create tentative themes (Bruce & Berg, 2001; Emerson, Fretz, Shaw, & Thompson, 1995; Wolcott, 2008). The frequency with which expressions, phrases, and words appeared was counted as a potential indicator of their intensity (Bruce & Berg, 2001). Intensity here refers to the significance attributed by the participants to a particular theme (Bruce & Berg, 2001). The themes that generated the most intensity were identified as potential candidates for key trajectories or epiphanies or experiences that potentially restructure the participants’ lives (Creswell, 2008; Denzin, 2001; Mohr, 1997). In developing themes, we looked for two things: First, we identified common experiences that were shared by most of the participants. These experiences were called the majority voice because these were the dominant experiences that were recurrent in the participants’ narratives (Bruce & Berg, 2001; Creswell, 2008). Second, we identified negative cases or aberrant experiences. These were called the minority voice, as these were experiences that disconfirmed or challenged the experiences of the majority (Bruce & Berg, 2001; Creswell, 2008). A description of the majority and minority voices is important in providing a holistic picture of the overall experiences of the DUI/DWI Court participants. Finally, we examined how participants interpreted their experiences, particularly how they connected one experience with another. This process allowed us to create assumptions about interrelationships between or among the participants’ experiences (Bruce & Berg, 2001; Creswell, 2008). For example, we investigated whether there were common narratives, experiences, or characteristics among participants who successfully completed the program compared with those who failed. This information allowed us to qualitatively create interrelationships across the experiences of participants and the potential impact of these experiences on successes or failures.

This process of coding expressions, phrases, and words and of creating themes was repeated until no new themes emerged from the data or until the point of saturation (Bowen, 2008; Creswell, 2008) was reached. In qualitative research, saturation is an important threshold to reach as it indicates that all potential themes from the data have already been identified and new themes could no longer be developed. Finally, we checked whether our interpretation of the themes fit the original interview text. In instances where the themes developed were not compatible with the context of the original interview text, we recoded the themes to better fit the interview text (Creswell, 2008).

To validate the data we gathered, we also interviewed program personnel (the judge, probation officers, and selected service providers). Although we did not incorporate their narratives in this manuscript, we used this information in verifying the claims of the participants. Furthermore, we used official court data to determine the level of involvement of the participants and their eventual program outcomes. This information was also used to confirm or disconfirm the narratives of the participants.

The Participants’ Lived Experiences: Emergent Themes

Promoting Alcohol Sobriety and Reducing Recidivism

One of the key questions we want answered was whether the DUI/DWI Court program promoted alcohol sobriety and reduced drunk driving. To provide an answer to this question, we asked the participants if they were impacted by the program and in what ways. The most common response, as reported by 15 of 20 participants, is the program’s effect of “making them sober.” Most participants agreed that they had refrained from using alcohol since they participated in the program. They also reported that they avoided driving when under the influence of alcohol. On further probing, it appeared that there were different themes related to alcohol sobriety. For example, Number 3 reported that

The program gave me a new, positive outlook on life. For the better, it helped me to have organization and responsibility which helped me keep on track. Also, it helped me to start a sober lifestyle. In the past, my plans revolved around drinking. Now, it revolves around achievement and enjoying life.

This sense of organization and responsibility, as an outcome of joining the DUI/DWI Court program is a common theme discussed by the participants. Two participants (Numbers 6 and 8) also talked about “realizing their mistakes and the degree of the seriousness of their drinking problems.” A male participant (Number 17) reported positive benefits of joining the program in terms of “recovering normalcy or being straightened out.” He reported,

The program helps put everything in my life back to normal. I believe the DUI/DWI Court is wonderful, had I been locked up, my drinking problems would not have been resolved and prison would not have rehabilitated me either.

Other participants described an even more profound change that served as a mechanism to become sober. Seven participants talked of “change in their inner selves.” Participants reported that the program empowered them to “gain control over their own destiny.” As Number 8 mentioned,

The program helped me to understand myself. I was able to accept who I am, to establish self-control, to regain self-esteem, and to be introduced to spiritual way of life.

Most of the participants admitted that they had been longtime alcohol abusers and that they had totally lost control over the directions of their lives. This admission is supported by the official court data that reveals that 74% of programs participants are classified as having a third-level alcohol addiction which requires medically intensive inpatient treatment.⁹ The program served as a venue for rethinking, or in phenomenological terms, as an epiphany that awakened them to the reality of their conditions.

These narratives suggest that the DUI/DWI Court program is an event that changed the trajectory of participants’ lives. To validate this information, we cross-checked whether those who claimed to have a positive experience with the program eventually completed the program successfully. Indeed, of the 15 who claimed to be positively impacted, 13 successfully completed the program with two still active. These narratives are also consistent with reintegrative shaming principles. Reintegrative shaming suggests that interventions that promote positive self-concept are necessary first steps toward reformation (Braithwaite, 1999). Interventions that dignify the person while condemning their offensive behaviors are more likely to be successful in effecting behavioral change (Braithwaite, 1999). This finding of improved sobriety is also consistent with quantitative and experimental studies that demonstrated that participants of DUI/DWI Courts have lesser recidivism rates than participants assigned in traditional courts (Breckenridge et al., 2000; Frank & Vegega, 2005; Lapham et al., 2006; Solop et al., 2003).

Experiences With the Program Components

While outcome evaluation studies have established the positive impact of the DUI/DWI Courts, there is a dearth of studies that have investigated what program components account for these impacts and how they do so. As such, we endeavored to look for themes regarding how alcohol sobriety was attained. We found that the principles of deterrence and reintegrative shaming, as manifested in the different program components, can be discerned from the narratives of the participants.

Deterrence

A key component of the DUI/DWI Court program is strict monitoring and supervision by the judge and the probation officer. Most participants agree that indeed this is the case. While many participants complained during the interviews about the frequent hearings and meetings, in retrospect, they found this to be very helpful. In all, 14 participants reported that the frequency of the court hearings was just about right. One participant (Number 12) reported that having frequent court hearings helped him to develop and practice good habits. He admitted that “if the court hearings were infrequent, I could have gotten away with things, like tricking the system or drifting away.” Another participant (Number 14) reported that the frequency of court hearings provided the structure to keep him on track, whereas another participant (Number 18) said that the frequent hearings kept him aware of the ramifications of the program.

Through constant monitoring and supervision, the participants are reminded of their duties and responsibilities. As reported by all participants, the judge inquired about their jobs, residence status, use of free time, and other facets of their lives. Most participants reported that the “probation officer is keen and persistent in knowing whether they comply with the requirements and whether they are doing what they are supposed to do.” Especially for the newer participants, the probation officer usually “talks about taking care of business in the program and verifies the progress in each component.” One participant (Number 8) reported that the “detailed check-up with the probation officer drove him to make good choices and prevented him from making previously unwise decisions.” Participant Number 3 reported,

The probation officer goes over my progress such as my journals to search for undiscovered slip-ups; she helps me to recover when I commit mistakes; she encourages me to ask questions and to make arrangements . . . Depending on my behaviors, she praises me; but reprimands me when I do not comply.

Monitoring and supervision is also enhanced by the use of appropriate technologies that can aid in the detection of violations, like breathalyzer and urinalysis tests. Participants reported that these tests deterred them from committing infractions, acknowledging that they cannot argue with test results if they were found positive of alcohol or drug use.

This intensive monitoring and supervision resulted in the imposition of swift, certain, and proportionate punishments when the participants failed to comply with the requirements of the program. Thus, participants tried, to the extent possible, to avoid any program violations. According to Participant Number 6, the “judge is an authority, a third person outside of myself that I am inclined to follow.” One participant reported that although the judge and probation officer seemed caring and helpful, they did not hesitate in giving penalties. Participants could be sentenced to jail or placed under more restrictive requirements. For example, for not attending an intensive counseling session, Participant Number 9 was meted 14 days in jail. The said participant was also given a two 21-day jail sentence for failing a urine test and for driving with a suspended license. These punishments, according to the participant, straightened him up. Also, the punishments meted to some served as a warning for other participants. When he learned of what happened to other participants, Participant Number 19 surmised that this “serves as a reality check on my own status.” One participant (Number 20) reported that seeing other participants “go to jail and face other repercussions when they mess up motivated me not to screw up.”

These narratives are consistent with the principles of deterrence. Deterrence theory suggests that antisocial behaviors can be modified through the imposition of certain, swift, and proportionate punishments (Blumstein et al., 1979; Nagin, 1978). These deterrence principles are manifested in different ways through the DUI/DWI Court. With constant monitoring and random testing, the DUI/DWI Courts had higher certainty in detecting violations. With the instant detection of violations and the imposition of sanctions, the swiftness principle was achieved. Also, with most participants who were meted out punishments claiming that the penalty given them were fair, the proportionality principle was observed.

Reintegrative Shaming

While the DUI/DWI Court team was strict in implementing the rules, they did this in what participants thought was a “caring manner.” Most participants reported that they developed personal relationships with the DUI/DWI Court team members. One participant (Number 15) described the meetings with the probation officers as “not overbearing” and that participants could be “relaxed.” Another participant (Number 4) described the meetings as “open and honest” and “I really connected with my probation officer.” Still another participant (Number 12) appreciated the fact that the meetings with the probation officer “have no surprises” and are usually “well handled.” A common theme is that the probation officer is considered “a helper” who listens to their life issues. Most participants reported that the probation officer was genuinely concerned and “provides advice on life and how to successfully complete the program” (Numbers 6 and 9). Seven participants mentioned that they were on track because of the probation officer’s prodding. One participant (Number 12) reported that the probation officer “goes out of her way” to help him. Another participant (Number 2) reported that the probation officer inquires even on her “physical and mental state,” things she considered not already a part of the program. Most participants also commented on the personal style of the probation officer. For example, Participant Number 15 reported that the probation officer was “good and helpful; she does her job well and does not abuse power, yet firm in expectations.” Another participant (Number 1) also commented on the personal style of the probation officer. This participant thought that the probation officer “helped as a friend” and that the officer really understood her situation. Another participant (Number 17) reported that through the probation officer’s help, he tried to stay sober. He did not want to let his probation officer down.

Participants also relayed that the judge was genuinely concerned with their lives. For example, a participant (Number 10) reported that during court hearings, the “judge asks about my feelings and inputs on my program.” One participant (Number 16) reported that the “judge asks about my concerns and problems.” Another participant commented that “the judge is encouraging and surprisingly nice” (Number 13). It was also reported that the judge made sure that “there is dedication and effort for real change” (Number 12). In a way, the whole DUI/DWI Court team was assessed to be “much involved” and that they were not simply “out to give judgments” (Number 12).

Participants also reported that their efforts were duly recognized. The participants received tokens like bus passes, cards, and coins when they successfully finished a requirement. They were praised in front of their peers. Though these acts may be simple, the participants claimed that these meant a lot to them. One newly admitted participant (Number 7) reported that the sight of a fellow participant graduating inspired him to be alcohol free. In his words,

Especially, when I attended graduation, I was given the opportunity to see results of the program and progress of others alongside their family and friends.

Using official court data, we cross-checked the performance of participants who were given praise and accolades and compared it with those who received a few or none at all. We found that those who were constantly praised and rewarded were more likely to complete the program successfully.

These narratives are consistent with the principles of reintegrative shaming. Reintegrative shaming theory suggests that interventions that manifest care and love for the participants will result in a better appreciation of the program (Braithwaite, 1999). Program implementers who display genuine concern for the needs of the participants can ignite and sustain their inclination to reform. This reintegrative shaming principle was manifested in the DUI/DWI Court team’s intimate knowledge about the details of each case. Team members meet in private prior to the court hearings to discuss the progress and struggles of program participants. This principle is also manifested in the way the DUI/DWI Court team members treated the participants and how they were positively involved in the participants’ lives. This trusting relationship enabled the participants to cultivate social bonds with conventional members of society. Finally, reintegrative shaming theory also proposes that participants who are “decertified” from their current labels (in this case, as alcoholics), are given opportunities previously unavailable to them (Braithwaite, 1999). This “decertification” from their master status also creates opportunities for the development of self-concepts that are facilitative of reform (Becker, 1963) and may ease the necessity and/or temptation of associating with delinquent peers who once helped sustain their alcohol and/or drug addiction.

Negative Cases

From the narratives above, it appears that the majority voice is an overall appreciation of the program. However, it is also important to describe the minority voice to show a holistic view about the program. The existence of these negative cases or discrepant experiences may reflect unintended consequences of the program. Also, these minority voices may provide a clue as to why some participants fail to complete the program and revert back to alcoholism.

Despite the generally positive experience in the court hearings, there were some participants who were negatively affected. One participant who eventually reoffended commented that court hearings served as an intrusive mechanism that continually “watched my back.” Others commented that court hearing interrogations were “intimidating and scary.” Some participants were not comfortable being put on the spot. Participant Number 2, for example, reported that she “did not like the fact that I was given a hearing in front of other people.” She said she was “not used to the public environment setting.” For other participants, it was also “humiliating” to be meted out punishments in front of other participants. Some felt that they were treated like “children when given some phony rewards for their good behavior.” The court hearings, according to one participant, were a “one-way discourse and less interactive.” One participant said that “it was not all helpful because it was not an efficient use of time.”

Despite the general agreement that the programs offered by the service providers were helpful, participants voiced some critical concerns that are worth noting. Most of these comments are related to specific programs and service counselors. It is noted that some of the reasons cited by participants as “helpful” are not shared by other participants.

For example, one participant had difficulties with a particular service provider. He found the counseling program “intrusive,” and that created problems of trust:

I found the treatment practice and counseling method by the counselor/social worker to be harsh. For example, when I was not able to pay the fine due to financial issue, the judge requested a budget plan for me. The counselor got involved in the budget plan even though I believe that budget plan was solely between me and the judge. The counselor even demanded to see my finances. I found it offensive that the counselor invaded my personal business. So, I brought it up in a meeting with the probation officer and requested that counselor would back off from my budget plan. My request was met in the next meeting with the counselor. In short, I had a boundary issue with the counselor through this episode. Overall, I did not find counseling at (service provider) to be helpful because there was more negative than positive experiences in terms of the method of counseling.

The intrusiveness of the program in the lives of the participants was echoed by another participant. Referring to the program in general, he reported that he “wanted to be left alone, but they would not leave me alone.” Also, some participants found that the process and structure of some of the programs did not fit well with their personalities. Following is a critical comment from one participant regarding the supervision offered by a service provider:

First of all, the environment is not conducive to honesty as they assume the clients to be extremely alcoholics. They do not differentiate between people with different drinking patterns. Secondly, the clinician/counselor enjoys her control and abuses power; the (name of service provider) counseling program is not about recovery but rather the counselor’s enforcing her will on clients.

In a similar vein, another participant found the same service provider, when he compared this with other programs, to be tough especially “if participants fight it.” He mentioned that it simply “pays to be obedient and to not slack off.” The said participant claimed to have been warned by the probation officer that all rules will be enforced.

Another area of concern raised by the participants was whether all aspects of the program were really necessary. For example, a participant commenting about a service provider said,

There is not much material to talk about. Frequency of once a week seems to be very frequent as it is not productive for the time invested. I suggest changing the frequency of the counseling to once in every 2 weeks.

Similarly, another participant reported an overnight camp to be completely unnecessary and unhelpful. The participant claimed to not have gotten anything out of it and was angry about the expense given that it was quite unproductive. Another participant found the urine tests to be unhelpful in that he claimed that drug screening was unnecessary given that he is an alcoholic and not a drug addict.

Finally, some participants raised questions about the contents of the program. A participant reported “that things learned in AA are in direct conflict with (service provider) counseling.” Another participant suggested that programs are redundant. He declared that

It is neither beneficial nor productive. The quality of counseling is terrible. If you are going to AA 3 to 7 times a week, why go to the (service provider) counseling and pay for it? The two programs are not much different in terms of how it is organized and operated.

A participant also commented that due to the length of the program (36 weeks), group counseling seemed “repetitive and no longer produced much resolution.” Also, some participants found the counseling environment depressing especially the “very bad stories” they hear from others in the counseling group.

Major Challenges Faced by the Participants

The participants enumerated other challenges they experienced while in the program. One of the most commonly cited challenges was the scheduling conflict. This was especially mentioned by participants who were new to the program. Many reported that there were numerous program components to attend to and all demanded time. Participants mentioned that many program components were in conflict with their work and family time. For example, one mentioned that “it is impossible to maintain my job with the current requirements of the program.” Another echoed this complaint and mentioned that the court hearings “conflicted with my job schedule” and “it was too much taking off from my work.” Also, some participants reported that despite their best efforts, it seemed that they were caught in a vicious problem. To illustrate this point, here is a narrative from one participant:

I was trying to maintain employment and family life, despite its difficulty. However, I failed to attend to a requirement once and as a result I was made to serve jail on weekends. Because of this, I missed work and then eventually lost my job.

In addition, there were participants who noted that the court hearings started late and also ended late. This resulted in their reporting to work late and could become the basis for termination from their jobs. One participant reported that because of extensions in the court hearing, he was penalized with parking violations that caused him additional expenses.

Another equally compelling complaint is the financial burden accrued by participants. They said that the program, despite its huge benefits, was a financial drain. Some participants reported that although individually the expenses seemed small, they eventually accumulated and became expensive in the long run.

Complaints were raised, such as in this example by one participant that

The program was financially burdensome and overwhelming as it was very difficult for me to make the payments. I consider the cost of program to be expensive. Though I appreciate the fact that the program covered some of the PBT and urine screening tests for the first couple of months, for the succeeding months, I have to pay on my own.

Another had a similar comment about the urine tests, that they are helpful but expensive. She said,

For the urine screening tests, it seems to be unreasonable because they are money-consuming. At first, they covered the cost; but later, I paid for it. Overall, it did help me, but money is involved and it is too much beyond my capacity.

Other participants complained that they “do not have a control” on where their money went. Here is a complaint from a participant who eventually committed a new offense:

I was not informed about the costs and options; in fact, I had no options to choose from. I felt like I was extorted. I was financially drained by paying $1,500 to the service provider, a program which I found to be iron-fisted. I should have been given a choice of what treatment and facility to choose from.

The third most common complaint, which is intimately linked with the first two, was transportation costs. As mentioned above, most participants found attending the different program components to be costly as they had to travel a fair distance to participate in these activities. This became especially acute when the gasoline prices peaked at about US$4 a gallon during the program. Furthermore, some participants also found traveling from one place to another to participate in different program components very tiring. They complained that they were usually tired after a full day’s work, yet they still had to travel places to meet the DUI/DWI program requirements. This was doubly difficult for those who used public transportation as some had to transfer from one bus to another to get to their destinations.

Discussion

This article’s phenomenological approach highlighted the lived experiences of offenders who underwent this DUI/DWI program and brought to light areas that participants found useful as well as those they viewed negatively. These qualitative narratives are often missing in evaluation studies as most studies about DUI/DWI have used quantitative designs. As mentioned earlier in this article, we were not able to locate a study that employed qualitative techniques. The narratives provided a more nuanced understanding of how the program works, why it is perceived positively or negatively by the participants, and areas that could be improved.

From these narratives, important themes emerged. For most of those interviewed, the DUI/DWI Court program appears to have helped participants maintain sobriety. Participants attributed their sobriety to improvements in their self-concept due to the program, particularly in their belief that they could overcome their addiction. Other participants established personal relationships with program officers who then helped them maintain sobriety. A key epiphany for most participants is the impact of the program that goes beyond maintaining sobriety. For many participants, the program was a life-changing experience that reoriented their outlook on life to more positive things. Participants talked about relearning the importance of family and work and of being better citizens. For most participants, the sobriety court was a far better alternative than prison as it provided a positive framework. Most reported that they will recommend this program to individuals who are in situations similar to theirs. These positive assessments are supported by the fact that of the 20 participants interviewed for this study, 12 successfully finished the program and only 4 failed to complete the program (see Table 1).

Major themes also emerged about the program processes. The dominant or majority voice characterized the DUI/DWI Court team members as respectful in their dealings with program participants. For most participants, the relationship with the DUI/DWI program team was characterized in glowing terms: friendly, supportive, caring. A majority consistently referred to the sincerity of the program’s team in looking after their welfare. A major epiphany for these participants occurred in their exposure to the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program. The AA sessions drew very positive opinions, such as opening their eyes to the gravity of their problems through subtle, reaffirming, and respectful ways. A minority voice, however, claimed that some treatment providers were intrusive and failed to respect their privacy. A recurrent theme among this minority voice is the power-imbalance and control, a sense that the DUI/DWI team had become paternalistic and reduced them to the status of children. A few voiced concern on overextension of authority by service providers that stifled self-change, which is contrary to the goals of the program. This minority voice suggests that participants may not be receiving a similar treatment among service providers, implying the importance of assessing the philosophy and processes used by service providers in delivering treatment. Consistent with the claims of reintegrative shaming theory, most of the participants who claimed that they were treated with respect finished the program successfully. With regards the deterrence principle of the program, two different but equally dominant themes emerged in this area. One theme supports the importance of intensive monitoring and the imposition of sanctions. Participants suggested that monitoring imposes order in their otherwise disordered lives. With every detail of their lives under scrutiny, they were forced to become sober. For these participants, the rigid schedule of the program translated into self-discipline and they viewed the imposition of sanctions as a fair mechanism that pushes them to take the program requirements seriously.

An equally dominant voice, however, claimed that the strict monitoring translated into difficulties. For example, the presence of multiple requirements translated into conflict with schedules that they could hardly reconcile. Despite diligent efforts, participants failed to meet the requirements of the program which in turn became the basis for demotion into the lower phases of the program or extending their current phase which lengthens their stay in the program. Some participants felt that the program gave primacy to monitoring and sanctions but did not consider how the requirements played out in real life. Issues regarding costs, transportation, and in some cases child care were very challenging to some participants and fundamentally inhibited their participation in program activities. Due to multiple requirements that they could barely keep up with, their perception was that they were being “set-up for failure,” and became embittered about the program.

In summary, this qualitative evaluation found support for DUI/DWI Courts as generally effective in promoting alcohol sobriety. Strict monitoring and supervision and the imposition of swift, certain, and proportional punishments for those who failed to meet program requirements were key components to program success. Another key component was the positive and trusting relationships developed between the DUI/DWI Court team members and the participants. Limitations and difficulties included costs, the multiplicity of program requirements which induced scheduling conflicts, and distrust with some service provides utilized by the DUI/DWI program. These difficulties highlight processes that could be ameliorated and more closely monitored to enhance program success. For example, with issues regarding transportation costs, child care, or conflicts with work schedules, temporary transportation loans to help alleviate costs may be put in place, as well as greater flexibility when there are court-hearing/work conflicts. Specific circumstances leading to violations besides alcohol use may be given more latitude to make room for the participants’ resource difficulties. It is a given, however, that DUI/DWI Courts need to affirm their authority, thus, latitude needs to be carefully balanced against rules and regulations. With regards difficulties experienced by some participants with service providers, the DUI/DWI team may need to carefully assess the performance of service providers to ensure that there are no systemic problems. The service providers’ roles in the participants’ behavioral change is crucial, thus, systemic problems could largely negate any positive impact that the Court interventions may have on participants. Finally, this study is limited in the small number of participants interviewed. However, this is not unusual in qualitative studies (Creswell, 2008). Moreover, the interviews were only one source of information. Other sources included official records of participants and interviews with DUI/DWI stakeholders and personnel. These sources, combined, provided a balanced qualitative analysis of a DUI/DWI Court which could be used broadly for programming purposes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Anderson

Chisholm

Fuhr

D. C.

(2009). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Lancet, 373, 2234-2246. doi:16/S0140-6736(09)60744-3

Barton

(2009). Howard county district court DUI court program outcome and cost evaluation. Portland, OR: Northwest Professional Consortium.

Becker

H. S.

(1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press.

Blumstein

Cohen

Nagin

(1978). Deterrence and incapacitation: Estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Bouffard

J. A.

Richardson

K. A.

Franklin

(2010). Drug courts for DWI offenders? The effectiveness of two hybrid drug courts on DWI offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 25-33. doi:16/j.jcrimjus.2009.11.004

Bowen

G. A.

(2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8, 137-152.

Braithwaite

(1999). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Breckenridge

Winfree

J. L. T.

Maupin

Clason

(2000). Drunk drivers, DWI “Drug Court” treatment, and recidivism: Who fails? Justice Research and Policy, 2, 87-106. doi:10.3818/JRP.2.1.2000.87

Bruce

Berg

(2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). CDC–Motor Vehicle Safety: Impaired Driving. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

11.

Chou

S. P.

Dawson

D. A.

Stinson

F. S.

Huang

Pickering

R. P.

Zhou

Grant

B. F.

(2006). The prevalence of drinking and driving in the United States, 2001-2002: Results from the national epidemiological survey on alcohol and related conditions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 83, 137-146. doi:16/j.drugalcdep.2005.11.001

12.

Clapp

J. D.

Johnson

Voas

R. B.

Lange

J. E.

Shillington

Russell

(2005). Reducing DUI among US college students: Results of an environmental prevention trial. Addiction, 100, 327-334. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00917.x

13.

Coben

J. H.

Larkin

G. L.

(1999). Effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing drunk driving recidivism. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16(1, Suppl. 1), 81-87. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00117-2

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

15.

DeJong

Hingson

(1998). Strategies to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 359-378.

16.

Denzin

N. K.

(2001). Interpretive interactionism (Vol. 16). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Emerson

R. M.

Fretz

R. I.

Shaw

L. L.

Thompson

(1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

18.

Frank

J. F.

Vegega

M. E.

(2005). Random assignment evaluation of the DUI Court Program in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office.

19.

Freeman-Wilson

Huddleston

C. W.

(1999). DWI/Drug Courts: Defining a national strategy. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

20.

Gerbert

Johnston

Caspers

Bleecker

Woods

Rosenbaum

(1997). Experiences of battered women in health care settings: A qualitative study. Women & Health, 24(3), 1-17. doi:10.1300/J013v24n03_01

21.

Hay

(2001). An exploratory test of Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 38, 132-153. doi:10.1177/0022427801038002002

22.

Kovandzic

T. V.

Sloan

J. J.

III Vieraitis

L. M.

(2002). Unintended consequences of politically popular sentencing policy: The homicide promoting effects of “Three Strikes” in U.S. cities (1980–1999). Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 399-424. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00100.x

23.

Kunitz

S. J.

Woodall

W. G.

Zhao

Wheeler

D. R.

Lillis

Rogers

(2002). Rearrest rates after incarceration for DWI: A comparative study in a southwestern US county. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1826-1831. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.11.1826

24.

LaBrie

R. A.

Kidman

R. C.

Albanese

Peller

A. J.

Shaffer

H. J.

(2007). Criminality and continued DUI offense: Criminal typologies and recidivism among repeat offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 603-614.

25.

Lapham

S. C.

Kapitula

L. R.

C’de Baca

McMillan

G. P.

(2006). Impaired-driving recidivism among repeat offenders following an intensive court-based intervention. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38, 162-169. doi:16/j.aap.2005.08.009

26.

Lapham

England-Kennedy

(2011). Convicted driving-while-impaired offenders’ views on effectiveness of sanctions and treatment. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 17-30. . doi:10.1177/1049732311406450

27.

MacDonald

J. M.

Morral

A. R.

Raymond

Eibner

(2007). The efficacy of the Rio Hondo DUI Court. Evaluation Review, 31, 4-23. doi:10.1177/0193841X06287189

28.

Marlowe

D. B.

DeMatteo

D. S.

Festinger

D. S.

(2003). A sober assessment of drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16, 153-157.

29.

McCartt

A. T.

Hellinga

L. A.

Wells

J. K.

(2009). Effects of a college community campaign on drinking and driving with a strong enforcement component. Traffic Injury Prevention, 10, 141-147. doi:10.1080/15389580802701284

30.

McKelvey

(1977). American prisons: A history of good intentions. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

31.

Mohr

W. K.

(1997). Interpretive interactionism: Denzin’s potential contribution to intervention and outcomes research. Qualitative Health Research, 7, 270-286. doi:10.1177/104973239700700207

32.

Moskowitz

Burns

(1990). Effects of alcohol on driving performance. Alcohol Health & Research World, 14(1), 12-14

33.

Nagin

(1978). General deterrence: A review of the empirical evidence. In Blumstein

Cohen

Nagin

(Eds.), Deterrence and incapacitation: Estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates (pp. 95-139). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

34.

Nagin

(1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime & Justice, 23, 1-42.

35.

National Drug Court Review. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.ndci.org/publications/publication-resources/national-drug-court-institute-review

36.

Ronan

S. M.

Collins

P. A.

Rosky

J. W.

(2009). The effectiveness of Idaho DUI and misdemeanor/DUI courts: Outcome evaluation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 154-165.

37.

Rossi

P. H.

Lipsey

M. W.

Freeman

H. E.

(2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

38.

Saltz

R. F.

Welker

L. R.

Paschall

M. J.

Feeney

M. A.

Fabiano

P. M.

(2009). Evaluating a comprehensive campus-community prevention intervention to reduce alcohol-related problems in a college population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, (Suppl. 16), 21-27.

39.

Solop

F. I.

Wonders

N. A.

Hagen

K. K.

McCarrier

(2003). Coconino county DUI/Drug court evaluation. Flagstaff: Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University.

40.

Tauber

J. T.

Huddleston

C. W.

(1999). DUI/drug courts: Defining a national strategy. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, US Department of Justice.

41.

Tonry

(2009). The mostly unintended effects of mandatory penalties: Two centuries of consistent findings. Crime & Justice, 38, 65-413.

42.

Vegega

(2008). Effectiveness of seven publicized enforcement demonstration programs to reduce impaired driving in USA: Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Indiana, Michigan, and Texas. UNECE Transport Review, 1, 89-90.

43.

Weiler

J. M.

Bloomfield

J. R.

Woodworth

G. G.

Grant

A. R.

Layton

T. A.

Brown

T. L.

. . . Watson

G. S.

(2000). Effects of fexofenadine, diphenhydramine, and alcohol on driving performance. Annals of Internal Medicine, 132, 354-363.

44.

West

Wilding

French

Kemp

Irving

(1993). Effect of low and moderate doses of alcohol on driving hazard perception latency and driving speed. Addiction, 88, 527-532.

45.

Wolcott

H. F.

(2008). Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.