Program Profile: DUII Intensive Supervision Program (DISP)

This comprehensive 3-year program provides swift sanctions, intensive probation, close monitoring, and mandatory treatment for repeat impaired-drivers. The program is rated Promising. There were statistically significant differences between the treatment and comparison groups across all counties. The treatment group experienced lower DUI recidivism, driving with a revoked or suspended license recidivism, and any other traffic offense convictions.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

The DUII (Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants) Intensive Supervision Program (DISP) in Multnomah County, Oregon, is a comprehensive 3-year program that includes swift sanctions, intensive probation, close monitoring, and mandatory treatment for persons convicted of repeat impaired-driving offenses. Its main goal is to change their thinking about the use of alcohol and drugs, to initiate behavioral changes that reduce recidivism, enhance public safety, and increase their quality of life.

Program Components

Most people convicted of repeat DUI offenses adjudicated in the Multnomah County Circuit Court are given the chance to enroll voluntarily in DISP. To be eligible, they must have been convicted of DUI at least once in the past. Although participation in DISP is voluntary, once a person enters the program he or she is required to complete it or face probation revocation and increased jail sanctions.

An incentive for participating in DISP is reduced jail time and suspension of the fine associated with the DUI conviction. Other court costs, supervision costs, and restitution must be paid by the person before completion. Persons convicted of misdemeanor offense spend only 2 days in jail when they begin the program. Those convicted of a felony of face more jail time upon conviction; this is subject to mandatory minimum laws and the discretion of the judge. DISP participants do not serve additional jail time unless they violate the conditions of probation. DISP participants are also subject to a wide spectrum of license sanctions. There is a 1- to 3-year suspension of driver’s licenses for one or two prior convictions and a lifetime revocation of driving privileges for all Oregon drivers convicted of three or more DUIs. Although Oregon requires Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDs) for drivers after DUI convictions, DISP often requires more mandatory IID time.

In addition to the initial short jail sentence and driver’s license sanction, intervention components of DISP include electronic alcohol monitoring for no fewer than 90 days, random urinalysis, sale of all vehicles, mandated treatment for no less than 1 year, attendance at self-help groups (Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous), and fulltime employment or school attendance. These requirements, which are conditions of probation, are monitored through regular court appearances and through frequent follow-up visits with a case manager and probation officer.

Participants are required to meet no less than monthly with their case managers, at which time they must provide documentation of work, Alcoholics Anonymous meeting attendance, treatment attendance, and payment of all fees, fines, and assessments. Case managers also ask participants about the last time they drank alcohol, used drugs, or drove a vehicle. Active engagement in treatment, self-help groups, and sober community activities is required and verified by the case manager. If participants commit a violation and self-report before they are caught, the sanctions will not include additional jail time. DISP participants must also see the judge at 90 days and again before they are transferred to a less-intensive probation.

Before transfer, participants must complete and pass a polygraph test, during which they are asked again about the last time they drank alcohol, used drugs, or drove. Weekly staffing meetings are held to review the docket, educate staff, review policies, and problem-solve cases. These meetings are attended by judges, case managers, a program director, treatment counselors, deputy district attorneys, and defense attorneys. Moving to a new program phase, program completion and successful termination are celebrated at twice-yearly ceremonies.

Study

Lapham and colleagues (2006) evaluated the DUII Intensive Supervision Program (DISP) using a quasi-experimental design that compared the risk of reoffending between DISP participants and a comparison group.

To select a study sample, records were obtained of all individuals in Oregon with a DUI conviction or a DUI–related revocation or suspension from the DMV. A list of driver’s license numbers, dates of birth, and sentence dates for individuals in the DISP program from its inception in January 1998 to March 2001 was obtained from the court. This data was matched to the DMV data using the driver’s license number (matches were verified using date of birth). Of the original 567 DISP participants who entered the program between Jan. 1, 1998, and March 31, 2001, 500 (88 percent) matched with the Oregon DMV data.

The DISP participants were frequency-matched to potential comparison group members to ensure equivalence between the treatment and control group. Only subjects living in the Portland area (and thus exposed to similar police activity and judicial conditions) were included in the sample. Treatment and control group members were matched on age category at sentencing (18–29 years, 30+ years), gender, year of conviction, and number of DUI offenses between 1993 and the conviction date (from 1 to 4+ convictions). This procedure resulted in a sample size of 460 DISP participants and 497 matched comparison individuals.

DISP participants were 89.1 percent male, and 80.4 percent were 30 years and older. The comparison group was 88.3 percent male, and 80.5 percent were 30 years and older. For the DISP group, about 24.0 percent had 1 prior DUI conviction, 39.3 percent had at least 2 priors, and 36.8 percent had more than 2 priors. Twenty-four percent of the comparison group had 1 prior DUI conviction in the previous 10 years, 38.3 percent had 2 prior DUI convictions, and 37.5 percent had more than 2 priors. There were no statistically significant differences between the DISP group and the comparison group with respect to age, gender, and the number of prior DUI convictions.

The index date is defined as the date of sentencing into DISP (for each member of the DISP treatment group) or the date of the DUI conviction (for each member of the comparison group). There were three primary outcome measures used in the analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of DISP:

• Time from the index date to DUI reoffense
• Time to arrest for driving with a revoked or suspended license (DWR/DWS)
• Time to any traffic related non–DUI or DWR/DWS conviction

The time to DUI reoffense is defined as the time from the sentence date to a subsequent arrest that resulted in a DUI conviction or a license suspension for refusing or failing a breath alcohol test. Time to DWR/DWS is defined as time from sentencing to a subsequent arrest that resulted in a conviction for DWR/DWS. Time to all other traffic convictions is defined as time from the sentence date to an arrest that resulted in another conviction (e.g. speeding, hazardous driving).

Rates of recidivism for DUI, DWR/DWS, and all other traffic convictions were computed using the number of person-weeks since the index date as the denominator. Relative risks of rearrest between DISP participants and comparison group, stratified by county, were computed using the Mantel–Haenszel estimator of the overall relative risk and associated confidence interval. Kaplan–Meier estimates of the recidivism function (one minus the survival function) also were obtained for each of the three recidivism variables, and the difference between the DISP group and comparison group was tested using the log-rank test. The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to model the hazard of each of the primary outcomes.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Lapham, Sandra C., Janet C’de Baca, Jodi Lapidus, and Garnett P. McMillan. 2007. “Randomized Sanctions to Reduce Reoffense Among Repeat Impaired-Driving Offenders.” Addiction 102:1618–25. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Multnomah County Circuit Court. DISP Participant Handbook. Revised Nov. 5, 2010.

Wiliszowski, Connie H., James C. Fell, A. Scott McKnight, A. Scott Tippetts, and J. DeCarlo Ciccel. “An Evaluation of Three Intensive Supervision Programs for Serious DWI Offenders.” Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine 54:375–87.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?