Abstract
We tested the generalizability of a science-based community prevention design to reduce DUI crashes. Previous researcher-led studies have confirmed the effects of an intervention design of visible enforcement coupled with heightened public awareness of enforcement to increase driver perception of likely detection for drinking and driving. A community coalition based the project on a prevention intervention model that included two key intermediate variables: levels of visible enforcement and of public awareness of enforcement. We evaluated the project using community-specific monthly time-series measures of DUI crashes and state level trends in DUI crashes, indicators of enforcement, and public attention to enforcement. We devised the evaluation design to determine if an observed trend in DUI crashes declined and to verify if key intermediate variables increased, as stimulated by local efforts. DUI crash analysis documented an upward trend during a pre-trial period from July 2010-December 2011, which matched the upward trend in state DUI crashes. After the local intervention began in January 2012, local DUI crashes began a clear downward trend (average 2013 crashes were 23% lower than in 2012 and a 5-month post-intervention average from 2013 was lower than the equivalent 5-month pre-intervention average). This contrasted with the continued upward state DUI crash trend, with a 2-year increase of 16%. The downward trend in local crashes was associated with an increase in DUI enforcement as well as news stories concerning DUI enforcement that were stimulated by the efforts of the community prevention project. These results confirm the generalizability of two previous community research trials that were conducted with limited or no research resources or leadership. We discuss the importance of controlling for external factors in attributing causation in a local prevention evaluation by confirming both sufficient local prevention efforts and a decline in DUI crashes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albery, I. P., & Guppy, A. (1995). Drivers’ differential perceptions of legal and safe driving consumption. Addiction, 90(2), 245–254.
Blincoe, L. J., Miller, T. R., Zaloshnja, E., & Lawrence, B. A. (2014). The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2010 (DOT HS 812 013). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812013.pdf.
Fell, J. C., Lacey, J. H., & Voas, R. B. (2004). Sobriety checkpoints: Evidence of effectiveness is strong, but use is limited. Traffic Injury Prevention, 5(3), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580490465247.
Holder, H. D., Flay, B., Howard, J., Boyd, G., Voas, R., & Grossman, M. (1999). Phases of alcohol problem prevention research. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 23(1), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000374-199901000-00027.
Holder, H. D., Gruenewald, P. J., Ponicki, W. R., Treno, A. J., Grube, J. W., Saltz, R. F., et al. (2000). Effect of community-based interventions on high-risk drinking and alcohol-related injuries. Journal of American Medical Association, 284(18), 2341–2347.
NHTSA. (2014). Traffic safety facts: Alcohol-impaired driving (DOT HS 812 102). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812102.pdf.
Ross, H. L. (1982). Deterring the drinking driver: Legal policy and social control. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Treno, A. J., Breed, L., Holder, H. D., Roeper, P., Thomas, B. A., & Gruenewald, P. J. (1996). Evaluation of media advocacy efforts within a community trial to reduce alcohol-involved injury: Preliminary newspaper results. Evaluation Review, 20(4), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841x9602000403.
Treno, A. J., Gruenewald, P. J., Lee, J. P., & Remer, L. G. (2007). The Sacramento Neighborhood Alcohol Prevention Project: Outcomes from a community prevention trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(2), 197–207.
Voas, R. B. (1997). Drinking and driving prevention in the community: Program planning and implementation. Addiction, 92, S201–S219.
Voas, R. B., & Fell, J. C. (2011). Preventing impaired driving: Opportunities and problems. Alcohol Research & Health, 34(2), 225–235.
Voas, R. B., & Hause, J. M. (1987). Deterring the drinking driver: The Stockton experience. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 19(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(87)90027-3.
Voas, R. B., Holder, H. D., & Gruenewald, P. J. (1997). The effect of drinking and driving interventions on alcohol-involved traffic crashes within a comprehensive community trial. Addiction, 92, S221–S236.
Wagenaar, A. C., Murray, D. M., & Toomey, T. L. (2000). Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol (CMCA): Effects of a randomized trial on arrests and traffic crashes. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 95(2), 209–217.
Acknowledgments
A special acknowledgment and appreciation is given to the following for obtaining key data necessary for this paper: Melody C. Reid, Alcohol Enforcement Team Coordinator, Lancaster, SC; Kristal Stroud, Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office; Elizabeth P. Rowe, Lancaster County School District, Lancaster, SC. In addition, we offer our appreciation for the hard work and support of all members of the Lancaster County Coalition for Healthy Youth, who have been key to the implementation of the prevention intervention described in this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
George, M.D., Holder, H.D., McKenzie, P.N. et al. Replication of a Controlled Community Prevention Trial: Results From a Local Implementation of Science-Based Intervention to Reduce Impaired Driving. J Primary Prevent 39, 47–58 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-017-0499-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-017-0499-y