STATE OF CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
2008
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN ACCORD WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 757
CHAPTER 450, 1989 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
JANUARY 2008
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Governor
DALE E. BONNER, Secretary
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
GEORGE VALVERDE
Director © California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2008
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704- 0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202- 4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project ( 0704- 0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY ( Leave blank)
2. REPORT DATE
January 2008
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Final Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
2008 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information System
6. AUTHOR( S)
Helen N. Tashima and Sladjana Oulad Daoud
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME( S) AND ADDRESS( ES)
California Department of Motor Vehicles
Research and Development Section
P. O. Box 932382
Sacramento, CA 94232- 3820
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
CAL- DMV- RSS- 08- 224
9. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY NAME( S) AND ADDRESS( ES)
10. SPONSORING/ MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT ( Maximum 200 words)
In this seventeenth annual legislatively- mandated report, 2005 and 2006 DUI data from diverse sources were compiled and cross- referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents cross tabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, court sanctions, administrative actions and alcohol- involved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1- year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested in each year over a time period of sixteen years. Also, the long- term recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 1994. Analyses were conducted on the effectiveness of alcohol education programs upon the 1- year postconviction records of those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol- related reckless driving, and on the effectiveness of the 3- month versus 6- month alcohol education programs on the 1- year postconviction records of first offenders. Two additional subanalyses were conducted to determine if differences on the outcome measures were related to BAC level ( below 0.20% and 0.20% and above). The proportions of 2005 convicted first and second offenders who were referred to alcohol education/ treatment programs are also presented.
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
156
14. SUBJECT TERMS
Drinking drivers, DUI tracking data system, DUI reporting system, DUI countermeasures, DUI recidivism, alcohol education and rehabilitation, driver license disqualification
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
None
NSN 7540- 01- 280- 5500 Standard Form 298 ( 2- 89)
Prescribd by ANSI Std. Z39- 18
e298- 102 2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
ii
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS OF YEAR 2008 CALIFORNIA DUI- MIS REPORT
􀂾 Alcohol- involved traffic fatalities rose by 1.5% in 2006, continuing the rising trend that started in 1999 after well over a decade of continuous decline ( see DUI Summary Statistics).
􀂾 Drug- involved fatalities show a slight decline in the midst of a growing trend in the past decade, increasing by 225%, from 264 in 1996 to 859 in 2006 ( see DUI Summary Statistics).
􀂾 The number of persons injured in alcohol- involved crashes increased slightly by 0.9% in 2006, following decrease of 2.3% in 2005 ( see DUI Summary Statistics).
􀂾 DUI arrests increased by 9.4% in 2006, following decreases by 0.4% in 2005 and by 1.4% in 2004, after increases of 3.7% in 2003 and 0.3% in 2002 ( see Table 1).
􀂾 The DUI arrest rate rose by 8.0% in 2006. The rate has remained fairly stable over the last five years. The 2006 rate represents a 14.7% reduction from the arrest rate in 1996 ( see DUI Summary Statistics).
􀂾 15.8% of all 2005 DUI arrests were associated with a reported traffic crash, compared to 14.8% in 2004. 6.6% of 2005 DUI arrests were associated with crashes involving injuries or fatalities, slightly higher than 6.2% in 2004 ( see Table 19).
􀂾 Among 2006 DUI arrestees, Hispanics ( 45.8%) again constituted the largest racial/ ethnic group, as they have each year since 1992 ( with the exception of 1999). Hispanics continued to be arrested at a rate substantially higher than their estimated percentage of California’s adult population ( 35.4% in 2006). This is shown in Figure 3.
􀂾 The median ( midpoint) age of an arrested DUI offender in 2006 was 30 years. Less than 1% of arrested DUI offenders were juveniles ( under age 18). This is shown in Table 3a.
􀂾 Among convicted DUI offenders in 2005, 72.9% were first offenders and 27.1% were repeat offenders ( one or more prior convictions within the previous ten years). This
iii
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
is shown in Table 10. The proportion of repeat offenders has decreased considerably since 1989, when it stood at 37%. However the increase in the proportion of repeat offenders in 2005 could be attributed to the change in the counting period for priors from seven to ten years.
􀂾 The median blood alcohol concentration ( BAC) of a convicted DUI offender, as reported by law enforcement on APS forms, was 0.15% in 2005, same as last year, yet almost double the California illegal per se BAC limit of 0.08% ( see Table 9a).
􀂾 10.3% of 2005 DUI arrest cases did not show any corresponding conviction on DMV records, decreased from 11.2% of the 2004 DUI arrests ( see Table 8).
iv
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge with appreciation the many individuals who have contributed to the success of this project. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the cooperation of the Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, in providing annual DUI arrest data and documentation. The contributions of Debbie McKenzie, Associate Governmental Program Analyst, in transforming mainframe computer files into readable data tables and figures, as well as her general assistance in the production of this report, are acknowledged with appreciation. We also would like to acknowledge the contributions of Patrice Rogers, Research Program Specialist II, Henry T. Lai, Staff Programmer Analyst, Leonard A. Marowitz, Research Manager II, Alcohol/ Drug Projects, and David J. DeYoung, Chief, Research and Development Branch.
Report Authors:
Helen N. Tashima, Research Program Specialist II and
Sladjana Oulad Daoud, Research Program Specialist I, Principal Investigators
v
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
DUI SUMMARY STATISTICS: 1996- 2006 i
HIGHLIGHTS OF YEAR 2008 CALIFORNIA DUI- MIS REPORT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v
INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION 1: DUI ARRESTS 4
SECTION 2: CONVICTIONS 12
SECTION 3: POSTCONVICTION SANCTIONS 24
SECTION 4: POSTCONVICTION SANCTION EFFECTIVENESS 37
DUI RECIDIVISM AND CRASH RATES 40
One- Year DUI Recidivism and Crash Rates for First and
Second DUI Offenders from 1990- 2005 40
One- Year DUI Recidivism and Crash Rates by County
for First and Second DUI Offenders Arrested in 2005 43
The Proportions of Alcohol Education Program Referrals
for First and Second DUI Offenders Arrested in 2005 46
Long Term Recidivism Rates of the 1994 DUI Offenders 47
ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR THE
ALCOHOL- RELATED RECKLESS OFFENDERS AND FIRST DUI
OFFENDERS 53
Alcohol Education Program Evaluation for Drivers Convicted
of Alcohol- Reckless Driving 56
Results of the Evaluation of the 3- Month and 6- Month
Alcohol Education Programs for First DUI Offenders 57
Results of the Evaluation of the 6- Month Alcohol Education
Programs for First DUI Offenders with BAC Levels Below
0.20% Versus 0.20% and Above 59
Results of the Evaluation of the 3- Month and 6- Month Alcohol
Education Programs for First DUI Offenders with BAC Levels
of 0.20% and Above 60
SECTION 5: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 62
SECTION 6: CRASHES INVOLVING ALCOHOL 66
DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS 78
HISTORY OF MAJOR DUI LAWS IN CALIFORNIA SINCE 1975 79
REFERENCES 92
GLOSSARY 96
vi
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
APPENDICES
NUMBER PAGE
A ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 757 - CHAPTER 450 99
B APPENDIX TABLES 101
B1 2006 DUI ARRESTS BY COUNTY, AGE, SEX AND
RACE/ ETHNICITY 101
B2 2005 DUI CONVICTIONS BY COUNTY, SEX, AND AGE 116
B3 TOTAL CONVICTION DATA FOR 2005 DUI ARRESTEES
BY COURT 125
B4 2005 DUI SANCTIONS BY COUNTY, COURT AND
OFFENDER STATUS 134
B5 DEMOGRAPHIC 2- YEAR PRIOR DRIVER RECORD
VARIABLES BY YEAR AND SANCTION GROUP FOR
ALCOHOL- RELATED RECKLESS AND 3- AND 6- MONTH
ALCOHOL PROGRAM DRIVERS 156
LIST OF TABLES
1 DUI ARRESTS BY COUNTY AND ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE,
2004- 2006 8
2 2006 DUI ARRESTS BY COUNTY AND TYPE OF ARREST 9
3a 2006 DUI ARRESTS BY AGE, SEX, AND RACE/ ETHNICITY 10
3b 2006 DUI ARRESTS BY SEX, AGE, AND RACE/ ETHNICITY 10
3c DUI ARRESTS UNDER AGE 21, 1996- 2006 11
4 2005 DUI CONVICTIONS BY AGE AND SEX 17
5 MATCHABLE 2005 DUI CONVICTIONS BY AGE, RACE/ ETHNICITY,
AND SEX 18
vii
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
LIST OF TABLES ( continued)
NUMBER PAGE
6 ADJUSTED 2005 DUI CONVICTION RATES AND RELATIVE
LIKELIHOOD OF CONVICTION BY AGE AND RACE/ ETHNICITY 18
7 TOTAL CONVICTION DATA FOR 2005 DUI ARRESTEES 19
8 ADJUDICATION STATUS OF 2005 DUI ARRESTS BY COUNTY 21
9a 2005 REPORTED BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION
( BAC) LEVELS OF DUI CONVICTIONS 22
9b 2005 REPORTED BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION ( BAC)
LEVELS OF CONVICTED DUI OFFENDERS UNDER AGE 21 23
10 2005 DUI CONVICTIONS BY OFFENDER STATUS
AND REPORTED BAC LEVEL 23
11 2005 DUI COURT SANCTIONS BY DUI OFFENDER STATUS 27
12 2005 DUI COURT SANCTIONS BY COUNTY AND OFFENDER
STATUS 28
13a ONE- YEAR UNADJUSTED PERCENTAGES OF SUBSEQUENT
DUI- INCIDENT- INVOLVED AND CRASH- INVOLVED FIRST
AND SECOND OFFENDERS, 1990- 2005 41
13b 2005 1- YEAR SUBSEQUENT DUI RECIDIVISM RATES BY
COUNTY FOR FIRST AND SECOND OFFENDERS 44
13c 2005 1- YEAR SUBSEQUENT CRASH RATES BY COUNTY
FOR FIRST AND SECOND OFFENDERS 45
14 COUNTS AND PROPORTIONS OF REPORTED ALCOHOL PROGRAM
REFERRALS FOR CONVICTED FIRST AND SECOND OFFENDERS
ARRESTED IN 2005 46
15 CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES OF THE FIRST SUBSEQUENT
DUI REOFFENSES FOR 1994 DUI OFFENDERS 47
viii
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
LIST OF TABLES ( continued)
NUMBER PAGE
16a THE EFFECT OF ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM ON
SUBSEQUENT CRASHES AND DUI INCIDENTS FOR DRIVERS
CONVICTED OF ALCOHOL- RELATED RECKLESS DRIVING 57
16b FIRST OFFENDER 3- MONTH AND 6- MONTH ALCOHOL
EDUCATION PROGRAM EFFECTS ON TOTAL CRASHES
AND DUI INCIDENTS 58
16c FIRST OFFENDER 6- MONTH ALCOHOL EDUCATION
PROGRAM EFFECTS ON TOTAL CRASHES AND DUI
INCIDENTS FOR DRIVERS WITH BAC LEVELS BELOW 0.20%
VERSUS 0.20% AND ABOVE 60
16d FIRST OFFENDER 3- MONTH AND 6- MONTH ALCOHOL
EDUCATION PROGRAM EFFECTS ON TOTAL CRASHES AND DUI
INCIDENTS FOR DRIVERS WITH BAC LEVELS 0.20% AND ABOVE 61
17 MANDATORY DUI LICENSE DISQUALIFICATION ACTIONS,
1996- 2006 64
18 ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE PROCESS MEASURES 65
19 DUI ARRESTS ASSOCIATED WITH REPORTED CRASHES,
1995- 2005 70
20 2005 HAD BEEN DRINKING ( HBD) DRIVERS INVOLVED
IN FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES BY RACE/ ETHNICITY AND
SOBRIETY CODE 71
21 2005 HAD BEEN DRINKING ( HBD) DRIVERS INVOLVED
IN FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES BY ADJUDICATION STATUS
AND SOBRIETY CODE 71
22 2005 HAD BEEN DRINKING ( HBD) DRIVERS INVOLVED
IN FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES WITH NO RECORD OF
CONVICTION, BY COUNTY AND SOBRIETY LEVEL 72
ix
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
LIST OF TABLES ( continued)
NUMBER PAGE
23 HAD BEEN DRINKING DRIVERS UNDER AGE 21 INVOLVED
IN FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES, 1995- 2005 73
24a 2005 HAD BEEN DRINKING DRIVERS INVOLVED IN
FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES BY AGE AND SEX 73
24b 2005 HAD BEEN DRINKING DRIVERS INVOLVED IN
FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES BY AGE AND SEX ( NOT ARRESTED
OR CONVICTED) 73
24c 2005 HAD BEEN DRINKING DRIVERS INVOLVED IN FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES BY AGE AND TYPE OF CRASH 74
25a SOBRIETY LEVEL BY PRIOR DUI CONVICTIONS FOR
2005 HAD BEEN DRINKING ( HBD) DRIVERS INVOLVED
IN FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES 75
25b SOBRIETY LEVEL BY PRIOR DUI CONVICTIONS FOR 2005
HAD BEEN DRINKING ( HBD) DRIVERS INVOLVED IN
FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES ( NOT ARRESTED OR CONVICTED) 75
26a 2005 HAD BEEN DRINKING ( HBD) DRIVERS INVOLVED IN
FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES BY PRIOR DUI CONVICTIONS 76
26b 2005 HAD BEEN DRINKING ( HBD) DRIVERS INVOLVED IN
FATAL/ INJURY CRASHES BY PRIOR DUI CONVICTIONS
( NOT ARRESTED OR CONVICTED) 76
27 2005 REPORTED BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION ( BAC)
LEVELS OF DRIVERS INVOLVED IN ALCOHOL- RELATED
CRASHES 77
LIST OF FIGURES
1 DUI management information system 2
2 DUI arrests 1996- 2006 5
x
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
LIST OF FIGURES ( continued)
NUMBER PAGE
3 Percentage of 2006 DUI arrests and 2006 projected population
( age 15 and over, based on the 2000 census) by race/ ethnicity 7
4 DUI abstracts of conviction received by DMV and conviction rates,
1996- 2006 14
5 Relative likelihood of conviction by race/ ethnicity 17
6 Percentage representation of court- ordered DUI sanctions ( 2005) 25
7 Percentages of first- and second- DUI offenders reoffending in a
DUI incident within one year after conviction ( arrested in 1990- 2005) 40
8 Percentages of first- and second- DUI offenders involved in a
crash within one year after conviction ( arrested in 1990- 2005) 42
9a Length of time between 1994 DUI conviction, and first subsequent
DUI conviction and DUI incidents ( alcohol crashes, major convictions,
APS suspensions and DUI FTAs) 48
9b Length of time between 1994 DUI conviction and first subsequent
DUI conviction by number of prior DUI convictions 49
9c Length of time between 1994 DUI conviction and first subsequent
DUI conviction by sex 50
9d Length of time between 1994 DUI conviction and first subsequent
DUI conviction by age group ( age at conviction date) 51
9e Length of time between DUI conviction and first subsequent
DUI reoffense of 1980, 1984, 1994, and 2000 DUI drivers 51
10a Adjusted 1- year crash and DUI incident rates for 2005- 2006
( fiscal year) alcohol reckless drivers by type of sanction 56
10b Adjusted 1- year crash and DUI incident rates for first offender
drivers ( arrested in year 2005) by length of alcohol education
program 58
11 Percentage of total injuries and total fatalities that were
alcohol- involved, 1996- 2006 68
12 Alcohol and drug involved total fatalities, 1996- 2006 68
xi
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
INTRODUCTION
This report is the seventeenth Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information System, produced in response to Assembly Bill 757 ( Friedman), Chapter 450, 1989 legislative session ( see Appendix A). This bill required the Department of Motor Vehicles ( DMV) to " establish and maintain a data and monitoring system to evaluate the efficacy of intervention programs for persons convicted" of DUI in order to provide " accurate and up- to- date comprehensive statistics" to enhance " the ability of the Legislature to make informed and timely policy decisions." The need for such a data system had long been documented by numerous authorities, including the 1983 Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. In responding to this legislative mandate, this report combines and cross- references DUI data from diverse sources and presents them in a single reference. Data sources drawn upon include the California Highway Patrol ( CHP) for crash data, Department of Justice ( DOJ) for arrest data, and the DMV driver record database. Each of these reporting agencies, however, initially draw their data from diffuse primary sources such as individual law enforcement agencies ( arrest and crash reports) and the courts ( abstracts of conviction).
The general conceptual design of the California DUI management information system ( DUI- MIS) is presented in Figure 1. The basic theme of the DUI- MIS is to track the processing of offenders through the DUI system from the point of arrest and to identify the frequency with which offenders flow through each branch of the system process ( from law enforcement through adjudication to treatment and license control actions). Figure 1 also illustrates the relationship between offender flow and data collection at each point of the process. The initiating data source for the DUI- MIS is the DUI arrest report, as compiled by the DOJ, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Monthly Arrest and Citation Register ( MACR) system.
Another major objective of this report is to evaluate the effectiveness of court and administrative sanctions on convicted DUI offenders. In the earlier years of this report, these evaluations were accomplished by examining the postconviction recidivism records ( alcohol/ drug- related crashes and traffic convictions) of offenders assigned to alternative sanctions within offender group. In recent years as the sanctions became increasingly homogenous within each offender group, the evaluations ( as mandated by law) became focused on available sanctions in selected groups. These evaluations are detailed in Section 4 on " Postconviction Sanction Effectiveness."
1
DUI INCIDENTSArrested? Chemical Test Refused? Accident Involved? Complaint Filed? Plea- Bargain? DUI Conviction? Referred to Treatment? License Suspended/ Revoked? License Reinstated? Treatment Not Completed? Arrest ReportReinstatement on Driver RecordConviction of Lesser OffenseTreatment DropoutTreatment ReferralDUI ConvictionSuspension/ Revocation onDriver RecordCourt Docket EstablishedAccident ReportAdministrative Per Se Suspension ReportMonthly Arrest and Citation RegisterAutomated Name Index SystemLicense Suspension and DUI ProcessingStatewide Integrated Traffic Record SystemAbstract of ConvictionDriver Record Master FileDUI Data Extraction ModuleDUI- MISLAW ENFORCEMENTADJUDICATIVETREATMENTLICENSE CONTROLFigure 1. DUI management information system. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
It should again be noted that it is not an objective of this report to make recommendations based on the data presented. Rather, the primary purpose of a reporting system such as the DUI- MIS is to provide objective data on the operating and performance characteristics of the system for others to assess in making policy decisions, formulating improvements and conducting more in- depth evaluations.
The DUI- MIS data system and report has led to numerous improvements in the California DUI system, from the identification of inappropriate dismissals in a small central valley court to major initiatives to improve the tracking and reporting of DUI cases. The success of the California DUI- MIS has also contributed to a national initiative to design a model DUI reporting system, developed under contract to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA).
3
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
SECTION 1: DUI ARRESTS
The information presented below on DUI arrests is based primarily on data collected annually by the Department of Justice ( DOJ), Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Monthly Arrest and Citation Register ( MACR) system. These data are the most current nonaggregated data available on DUI arrests.
Table 1: DUI Arrests by County and Annual Percentage Change from 2004- 2006. The number of DUI arrests by county for the years 2004- 2006 and the percentage change from 2005- 2006 are shown in Table 1.
Table 2: 2006 DUI Arrests by County and Type of Arrest. This table shows a breakdown of 2006 DUI arrests by felony, juvenile, and misdemeanor arrest type, by county. The table also shows county and statewide DUI arrest rates per 100 licensed drivers.
Tables 3a and 3b: 2006 DUI Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race/ Ethnicity. Table 3a cross tabulates age by sex and age by race/ ethnicity of 2006 DUI arrestees statewide. The same tabulations by county are found in Appendix Table B1. Also, Table 3a shows the average ( Mean) age for 2006 arrestees. In addition to the mean, the median ( midpoint) was reported to minimize the influence of data values that are not equally distributed. Table 3b shows the same data cross tabulated by sex and age within race/ ethnicity.
Table 3c: DUI Arrests Under Age 21, 1996- 2006. Table 3c shows a breakdown of DUI arrests under 21, by age, from 1996 to 2006. It also shows a proportion of DUI arrests under 21 in the total number of DUI arrests for the state over the same time period.
Figure 2 ( below) displays the trend in DUI arrests from 1996 to 2006.
4
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
19961997199819992000200120012003200420052006050000100000150000200000250000TotalFelonyMisdemeanorYEARNUMBER OF DUI ARRESTSFigure 2.   DUI arrests 1996‐ 2006.
Based on the data shown in Figure 2 and previously listed tables, the following statements can be made about DUI arrests in California:
Statewide Parameters:
􀂾 DUI arrests increased by 9.4% in 2006, following a decrease of 0.4% in 2005, and a decrease of 1.4% in 2004 ( see Table 1).
􀂾 Table 2 shows that DUI arrest rate per 100 licensed drivers was 0.8 in 2006 ( as it was in 2000- 2005, but down from 0.9 in 1997- 1999). This represents a 56% reduction from the 1.8 rate in 1990.
􀂾 The percentage of DUI arrests that were felonies ( involving bodily injury or death) decreased slightly from 3.3% in 2005 to 3.1% in 2006; felony DUI arrests continue to constitute a relatively small percentage of all DUI arrests ( see Table 2).
County Variation:
􀂾 20.0% of all 2006 California DUI arrests occurred in Los Angeles County. Four counties ( Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, and San Bernardino) had over 10,000 DUI arrests each, accounting for 43.5% of all arrests ( see Table 2).
􀂾 The 2006 county DUI arrest rates ranged from 0.3 to 2.9 DUI arrests per 100 licensed drivers ( the statewide average rate is 0.8). Seven counties had rates of 0.7 or below. 5
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
These low arrest rate counties were San Francisco ( 0.3), Contra Costa ( 0.6), Santa Clara ( 0.6), Alameda, Los Angeles, San Mateo and Solano ( 0.7). Five counties had rates of 2.0 or higher— Sierra ( 2.9), Glenn ( 2.8), Inyo ( 2.3), Alpine and Colusa ( 2.0). This is shown in Table 2.
􀂾 While DUI arrests have been declining in past years, DUI arrests in 2006 increased in most counties. Among the larger counties, the greatest percentage increase occurred in Ventura ( 25.5%), Fresno ( 22.5%) and Orange ( 17.9%). Among smaller counties, the largest percentage increases in DUI arrests occurred in Inyo ( 53.2%), Mendocino and Shasta ( 43.2%), Modoc ( 36.1%), Kings ( 30.7%) and Placer ( 28.2%). Counties showing large percentage declines in DUI arrests were the smaller counties of Alpine (- 18.5%), Del Norte (- 16.8%) and Glen (- 13.1%). This is shown in Table 1.
Demographic Characteristics:
􀂾 The median age of a DUI arrestee in 2006 was 30 years. Slightly more than half ( 52.7%) of all arrestees were age 30 or younger and three- quarters ( 75.0%) were age 40 or younger. Less than 1% of all DUI arrests involved juveniles ( under age 18). 2.1% of all arrestees were over age 60 ( see Table 3a).
􀂾 Among all DUI arrestees, the proportion of DUI arrests under age 18 has remained relatively stable in the past 10 years ( varying between 0.8% and 0.9%); however, the proportion of DUI arrests under age 21 increased from 7.5% in 1996 to 9.4% in 2006 ( 25.3% increase). This is shown in Table 3c.
􀂾 Males comprised 81.9% of all 2006 DUI arrests ( see Table 3a). The proportion of females among DUI arrestees has risen slightly each year this report has been produced, from 10.6% in 1989 to 18.1% in 2006.
􀂾 In 2006, Hispanics ( 45.8%) again represented the largest ethnic group among DUI arrestees as they have each year since 1992 ( with the exception of 1999, when Whites were the largest group at 42.8%). Hispanics continued to be arrested at a rate substantially higher than their estimated 2006 population parity of 35.4% ( Department of Finance, Demographic Research and Census Data Center). Blacks were also slightly overrepresented among DUI arrestees ( 7.0% of arrests, 6.0% of the population), while other racial/ ethnic groups were underrepresented among DUI arrestees, relative to their estimated 2006 population parity. These
6
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
underrepresented groups were Whites ( 40.4% of arrests, 43.9% of the population), and “ Other” ( 6.9% of arrests, 14.7% of the population). This is shown in Table 3a and Figure 3.
􀂾 Among male 2006 DUI arrestees, 50.4% were Hispanic, 36.1% were White, 6.8% were Black, and 6.6% were " Other." Among female DUI arrestees, 59.5% were White, 24.8% were Hispanic, 7.7% were Black, and 8.0% were " Other." The overrepresentation of Hispanics among DUI offenders is clearly limited to males ( see Table 3b).
􀂾 In some counties where the population of Hispanics is high, the DUI arrest rate is also higher. For example, in the following eight counties, Hispanics comprised 60% or more of those arrested for DUI during 2006: Tulare ( 76.3%), Madera ( 69.7%), Imperial ( 67.8%), Fresno ( 67.4%), Monterey ( 66.0%), Merced ( 65.6%), San Benito ( 64.6%), and Kings ( 60.8%). However, in most other counties, the majority of arrestees were White ( see Appendix Table B1).
􀂾 The median age of a DUI arrestee varied considerably by race: Blacks were the oldest with a median age of 34.0 years, while Hispanics were the youngest, with a median age of 28.0 years ( see Table 3a).
40.445.87.06.943.935.46.014.7WhiteHispanicBlackOther01020304050DUI arrests2006 projected populationPERCENTAGEFigure 3.   Percentage of 2006 DUI arrests and 2006 projected population ( age 15 and over,  based on the 2000 census)  by race/ ethnicity.
7
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 1: DUI ARRESTS* BY COUNTY AND ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE, 2004- 2006
COUNTY
2004
2005
2006
% CHANGE 2005- 2006
STATEWIDE
180957
180288
197248
9.4
ALAMEDA 6454
7241
7253
0.2
ALPINE
40
27
22
- 18.5
AMADOR
319
310
352
13.5
BUTTE
1395
1432
1647
15.0
CALAVERAS
375
313
319
1.9
COLUSA
267
294
268
- 8.8
CONTRA COSTA
3845
3494
4004
14.6
DEL NORTE
378
327
272
- 16.8
EL DORADO
1358
1370
1411
3.0
FRESNO
6064
6388
7826
22.5
GLENN
449
589
512
- 13.1
HUMBOLDT
1279
1240
1164
- 6.1
IMPERIAL 1215
1181
1371
16.1
INYO
259
218
334
53.2
KERN
5541
5105
5232
2.5
KINGS
935
992
1297
30.7
LAKE
601
476
535
12.4
LASSEN**
171**
244
262
7.4
LOS ANGELES
36705
38329
39518
3.1
MADERA
1001
1016
1104
8.7
MARIN
1533
1557
1583
1.7
MARIPOSA
135
130
161
23.8
MENDOCINO
778
759
1087
43.2
MERCED
1495
1753
1988
13.4
MODOC 60
72
98
36.1
MONO
130
125
149
19.2
MONTEREY
3584
2973
3052
2.7
NAPA
1099
981
1056
7.6
NEVADA
789
664
758
14.2
ORANGE
13492
13586
16012
17.9
PLACER
1805
1834
2351
28.2
PLUMAS
269
221
262
18.6
RIVERSIDE 8533
8754
9896
13.0
SACRAMENTO
7193
7172
7818
9.0
SAN BENITO
357
377
396
5.0
SAN BERNARDINO
10695
10810
12233
13.2
SAN DIEGO
17129
16467
18101
9.9
SAN FRANCISCO
1648
1363
1336
- 2.0
SAN JOAQUIN
4219
3955
4436
12.2
SAN LUIS OBISPO
2321
2267
2549
12.4
SAN MATEO
3501
3310
3542
7.0
SANTA BARBARA
2770
2518
2665
5.8
SANTA CLARA
7000
6619
6697
1.2
SANTA CRUZ
1697
1605
1739
8.3
SHASTA
1042
891
1276
43.2
SIERRA
69
83
80
- 3.6
SISKIYOU
396
365
447
22.5
SOLANO
1660
1746
1916
9.7
SONOMA
2907
2985
3384
13.4
STANISLAUS
2575
2660
2846
7.0
SUTTER
530
473
584
23.5
TEHAMA
592
718
748
4.2
TRINITY
182
169
190
12.4
TULARE
3446
3315
3476
4.9
TUOLUMNE
551
453
463
2.2
VENTURA
4370
4139
5196
25.5
YOLO
1146
1273
1293
1.6
YUBA
608
560
681
21.6
* DOJ DUI arrest totals with boat DUI ( N = 332) removed.
** The count for 2004 was incomplete. 8
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 2: 2006 DUI ARRESTS BY COUNTY AND TYPE OF ARREST
TYPE OF ARREST
DUI ARRESTS PER
COUNTY
TOTAL
FELONY
JUVENILE
MISDEMEANOR
100 LICENSED
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
DRIVERS
STATEWIDE
197248
100.0
6109
3.1
1697
0.9
189442
96.0
0.8
ALAMEDA
7253
3.7
96
1.3
41
0.6
7116
98.1
0.7
ALPINE
22
0.0
3
13.6
0
0.0
19
86.4
2.0
AMADOR
352
0.2
5
1.4
1
0.3
346
98.3
1.2
BUTTE
1647
0.8
50
3.0
21
1.3
1576
95.7
1.1
CALAVERAS
319
0.2
10
3.1
4
1.3
305
95.6
0.9
COLUSA
268
0.1
8
3.0
8
3.0
252
94.0
2.0
CONTRA COSTA
4004
2.0
114
2.8
53
1.3
3837
95.8
0.6
DEL NORTE
272
0.1
6
2.2
4
1.5
262
96.3
1.5
EL DORADO
1411
0.7
56
4.0
18
1.3
1337
94.8
1.0
FRESNO
7826
4.0
200
2.6
74
0.9
7552
96.5
1.6
GLENN
512
0.3
16
3.1
2
0.4
494
96.5
2.8
HUMBOLDT
1164
0.6
40
3.4
13
1.1
1111
95.4
1.2
IMPERIAL
1371
0.7
30
2.2
13
0.9
1328
96.9
1.4
INYO
334
0.2
16
4.8
3
0.9
315
94.3
2.3
KERN
5232
2.7
181
3.5
45
0.9
5006
95.7
1.2
KINGS
1297
0.7
39
3.0
18
1.4
1240
95.6
1.9
LAKE
535
0.3
22
4.1
11
2.1
502
93.8
1.2
LASSEN
262
0.1
6
2.3
1
0.4
255
97.3
1.3
LOS ANGELES
39518
20.0
1674
4.2
169
0.4
37675
95.3
0.7
MADERA
1104
0.6
47
4.3
13
1.2
1044
94.6
1.5
MARIN
1583
0.8
35
2.2
21
1.3
1527
96.5
0.9
MARIPOSA
161
0.1
5
3.1
0
0.0
156
96.9
1.1
MENDOCINO
1087
0.6
19
1.7
14
1.3
1054
97.0
1.7
MERCED
1988
1.0
42
2.1
16
0.8
1930
97.1
1.5
MODOC 98
0.0
4
4.1
0
0.0
94
95.9
1.5
MONO
149
0.1
6
4.0
3
2.0
140
94.0
1.6
MONTEREY
3052
1.5
64
2.1
34
1.1
2954
96.8
1.3
NAPA
1056
0.5
36
3.4
9
0.9
1011
95.7
1.2
NEVADA
758
0.4
32
4.2
6
0.8
720
95.0
0.9
ORANGE
16012
8.1
281
1.8
93
0.6
15638
97.7
0.8
PLACER
2351
1.2
47
2.0
31
1.3
2273
96.7
1.0
PLUMAS
262
0.1
10
3.8
3
1.1
249
95.0
1.5
RIVERSIDE
9896
5.0
253
2.6
99
1.0
9544
96.4
0.8
SACRAMENTO
7818
4.0
375
4.8
73
0.9
7370
94.3
0.9
SAN BENITO
396
0.2
12
3.0
2
0.5
382
96.5
1.1
SAN BERNARDINO
12233
6.2
435
3.6
90
0.7
11708
95.7
1.0
SAN DIEGO
18101
9.2
463
2.6
154
0.9
17484
96.6
0.9
SAN FRANCISCO
1336
0.7
72
5.4
2
0.1
1262
94.5
0.3
SAN JOAQUIN
4436
2.2
116
2.6
47
1.1
4273
96.3
1.1
SAN LUIS OBISPO
2549
1.3
51
2.0
43
1.7
2455
96.3
1.4
SAN MATEO
3542
1.8
67
1.9
32
0.9
3443
97.2
0.7
SANTA BARBARA
2665
1.4
93
3.5
24
0.9
2548
95.6
1.0
SANTA CLARA
6697
3.4
255
3.8
80
1.2
6362
95.0
0.6
SANTA CRUZ
1739
0.9
39
2.2
25
1.4
1675
96.3
1.0
SHASTA
1276
0.6
43
3.4
15
1.2
1218
95.5
1.0
SIERRA
80
0.0
7
8.8
0
0.0
73
91.3
2.9
SISKIYOU
447
0.2
14
3.1
8
1.8
425
95.1
1.2
SOLANO
1916
1.0
55
2.9
24
1.3
1837
95.9
0.7
SONOMA
3384
1.7
77
2.3
49
1.4
3258
96.3
1.0
STANISLAUS
2846
1.4
85
3.0
38
1.3
2723
95.7
0.9
SUTTER
584
0.3
16
2.7
7
1.2
561
96.1
1.0
TEHAMA
748
0.4
27
3.6
5
0.7
716
95.7
1.9
TRINITY
190
0.1
9
4.7
4
2.1
177
93.2
1.7
TULARE
3476
1.8
108
3.1
48
1.4
3320
95.5
1.6
TUOLUMNE
463
0.2
13
2.8
7
1.5
443
95.7
1.1
VENTURA
5196
2.6
156
3.0
53
1.0
4987
96.0
1.0
YOLO
1293
0.7
37
2.9
22
1.7
1234
95.4
1.1
YUBA
681
0.3
31
4.6
4
0.6
646
94.9
1.6
9
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
10
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 3c: DUI ARRESTS UNDER AGE 21, 1996- 2006
AGE
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
TOTAL
( ALL AGES)
N
201765
191164
188327
188523
181336
176490
177056
183560
180957
180288
197248
N
1814
1709
1761
1741
1527
1645
1557
1576
1488
1436
1697
UNDER 18
%
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
N
13357
12267
13093
13875
14145
14075
14410
14612
14672
14617
16837
18- 20
%
6.6
6.4
7.0
7.4
7.8
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.5
N
15171
13976
14854
15616
15672
15720
15967
16188
16160
16053
18534
UNDER 21
%
7.5
7.3
7.9
8.3
8.6
8.9
9.0
8.8
8.9
8.9
9.4
11
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
SECTION 2: CONVICTIONS
Data on convictions resulting from court adjudication of DUI arrests are reported directly to the Department of Motor Vehicles ( DMV) on court abstracts of conviction. Although the DUI arrest data reported earlier are based on arrests that occurred in 2006, the DUI conviction data are based on convictions of DUI offenders arrested in 2005, in order to allow sufficient time for courts to report convictions to DMV. The following tables compile and cross tabulate these conviction data by demographic, geographic, and adjudicative categories. Beginning with last year’s report, the median was calculated and reported to describe certain characteristics of the conviction data, in addition to the mean, to minimize the influence of data values that are not symmetrically distributed. In what follows, expressions like “ 2005 convictions” refer to DUI offenders arrested in 2005, who were subsequently convicted in that year.
Table 4: 2005 DUI Convictions by Age and Sex. This table cross tabulates statewide DUI conviction information by age and sex. Corresponding county- specific conviction data are presented in Appendix Table B2.
Table 5: Matchable 2005 DUI Convictions by Age, Race/ Ethnicity, and Sex. This table displays DUI conviction information by age, race/ ethnicity, and sex. " Matchable" DUI convictions are those which are traceable to a DUI arrest appearing on the MACR system. Because not all arrests could be matched to an existing record, these conviction totals underestimate the total number of actual convictions.
Table 6: Adjusted 2005 DUI Conviction Rates and Relative Likelihood of Conviction by Age and Race/ Ethnicity. This table shows the relative probability of a DUI arrest leading to a DUI conviction by age and race/ ethnicity. DUI conviction totals from categories in Table 5 (" matchable DUI convictions") were increased by the proportion which matchable convictions constituted of " total DUI convictions," shown in Table 7, to arrive at the adjusted DUI conviction rates. As explained above, without this adjustment DUI conviction rates would be underestimated using the conviction data from Table 5, because not all reported convictions are " matchable" to an arrest.
Table 7: Total Conviction Data for 2005 DUI Arrestees. This table portrays county and statewide DUI- related conviction data as reported to the DMV on court abstracts of conviction. Corresponding court- specific data are shown in Appendix Table B3. Convictions not reported to DMV are considered nonconvictions for the purposes of this report. Actual nonconvictions include cases where the DUI arrest was not filed, not
12
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
prosecuted, or resulted in a not- guilty verdict. The DUI conviction rates by county were calculated by comparing the county conviction totals with DOJ arrest totals. Because not all 2005 DUI arrests have yet been adjudicated, these conviction totals and rates will slightly underestimate the " final" figures. The DUI conviction rates shown in the " DUI Summary Statistics: 1996- 2006" table at the very beginning of this report include an estimate of these late convictions, and thus are slightly higher than those shown in Tables 7 and 8. Conviction variables include felony and misdemeanor DUI convictions, alcohol- and nonalcohol- related reckless driving convictions, convictions of " other" lesser offenses, and DUI convictions dismissed or found unconstitutional. DUI arrest dates from the DOJ MACR system were matched to driver record violation dates to identify nonalcohol- related reckless driving and " other" convictions. The median adjudication time lags from DUI arrest to conviction, and from conviction to update on the DMV database, were calculated for each county.
Table 8: Adjudication Status of 2005 DUI Arrests by County. This table shows the adjudication status ( court disposition) of 2005 DUI arrests, by county. Included are the percentages of arrests which resulted in DUI convictions ( misdemeanor or felony), reckless driving convictions ( alcohol- related or nonalcohol- related), convictions of " other" offenses, or no reported conviction, as of the date of writing. Again, because not all 2005 DUI arrests have yet been adjudicated, these rates will slightly underestimate the " final" rate for each category, except for the category " no record of any conviction," which will be slightly reduced ( approximately 1- 2%) by the eventual adjudication of these few late cases.
Table 9a: 2005 Reported Blood Alcohol Concentration ( BAC) Levels of DUI Convictions and Table 9b: 2005 Reported Blood Alcohol Concentration ( BAC) Levels of Convicted DUI Offenders Under Age 21. Table 9a shows the frequency of reported positive BAC levels for DUI and alcohol- reckless convictions. Because the forms on which APS actions are reported more completely report BAC levels ( 82.0%) than do abstracts of conviction, APS forms are used to calculate statewide BAC levels. Table 9b shows the BAC distribution for convicted arrestees under age 21.
Table 10: 2005 DUI Convictions by Offender Status and Reported BAC Level. This table displays the proportions of convicted DUI offenders by offender status ( number of prior convictions in ten years as defined by SB 1694, Torlakson, effective 1/ 1/ 2005), with the average ( mean) and median BAC level from APS reporting forms and abstracts of conviction, for each offense level.
13
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
Figure 4 ( below) shows, for the years 1996 to 2006, the number of DUI abstracts of conviction received to date by DMV from the courts, and conviction rates based on the data received as of September 2007.
19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006125,000150,000175,000200,000DUI abstracts of conviction received to dateDUI CONVICT ONSYEAR OF ARREST
Percent convicted of
DUI as of Sept. 2007 74% 75% 77% 79% 80% 80% 79% 79% 79% 78% 75%
( conviction rate)
Note: For arrests occurring from 1996 to 2005, 5.3% of California drivers had one- or- more DUI conviction on their record in 2005.
Figure 4. DUI abstracts of conviction received by DMV and conviction rates, 1996- 2006.
Based on these data, the following statements can be made:
Statewide Adjudication Parameters:
􀂾 78.1% of 2005 DUI arrests resulted in convictions of DUI offenses ( see Table 7).
􀂾 As of January 1, 2005, DUI convictions remain on the driving record for ten years. Therefore, based on the DUI conviction data, over ten years ( 1996- 2005), 5.3% of California drivers have one or more DUI conviction on their record.
􀂾 9.6% of 2005 DUI arrests resulted in reckless driving convictions, and 16.7% ( 1.6%/ 9.6%) of these were nonalcohol- related reckless violations ( see Table 8).
14
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
􀂾 1.9% of 2005 DUI arrests resulted in convictions of offenses other than DUI or reckless driving, which is the same as last year ( see Table 8).
􀂾 10.3% of 2005 DUI arrests have not yet resulted in any conviction on DMV’s records, down slightly from 11.2% in 2004, and down from 16.3% in 1995. As additional cases are adjudicated and reported by the courts, this figure will decrease slightly ( see Table 8).
􀂾 The average reported BAC level for all convicted DUI offenders in 2005, using APS reporting forms as the data source, was 0.16% ( median BAC level was 0.15%), which is down slightly from the last several years, yet still more than double the illegal per se BAC limit of 0.08% ( see Table 9a).
􀂾 Average and median BAC levels increase as a function of the number of prior DUI convictions. Average BAC level increases from a 0.16% BAC for a first offense to a 0.19% BAC for a fourth or subsequent offense ( when the median is reported, BAC level increases from 0.15% BAC for a first offense to a 0.18% BAC for a fourth or subsequent offense). This is shown in Table 10.
􀂾 Among 2005 convicted DUI offenders, 72.9% were first offenders, 20.1% were second offenders, 5.3% were third offenders, and 1.7% were on their fourth or more offense. ( The statutorily defined time period for counting priors in California has traditionally been 7 years, although that period was just changed to 10 years by SB 1694, Torlakson, effective 1/ 1/ 2005) The proportion of all convicted DUI offenders that are repeat offenders ( 27.1%), shown in Table 10, has increased since the counting period for priors has changed from seven to ten years.
􀂾 The median adjudication time lags were 73 days from DUI arrest to conviction and 13 days from conviction to update on the DMV database, totaling a little less than 3 months from arrest to update on the offender's driving record. This total elapsed time from arrest to update appears substantially shorter than in previous years, because, as of last year, elapsed time for 2005 data reported here was calculated using the median instead of the mean ( see Table 7).
Variation by County:
􀂾 Among the larger counties, 2005 DUI conviction rates varied from highs of 89.8% in Orange to a low of 69.6% in Alameda. Los Angeles County, which accounted for over 20 percent of all DUI arrests in the state, had a DUI conviction rate of 74.3% ( see Table 7).
15
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
􀂾 Among the smaller counties, 2005 DUI conviction rates varied from a high of 98.4% in Mono to a low of 33.7% in Sierra ( see Table 7).
􀂾 The rates at which DUI arrests were plea- bargained to alcohol- related reckless driving convictions varied from 25.9% in Alpine County to 0% in Ventura County ( see Table 8).
􀂾 The percentage of DUI arrests that were improperly adjudicated as nonalcohol- related reckless driving convictions varied from 0% ( Sierra and Ventura) to 11.4% ( San Francisco). This is shown in Table 8.
􀂾 The percentage of DUI arrests adjudicated as minor convictions (" other" convictions) varied from 0% to 4.7%. Alpine, Del Norte, Los Angeles, Marin, San Luis Obispo, and Trinity counties had rates of 3% or more ( see Table 8).
􀂾 In six counties, the proportion of arrestees not showing a conviction of any offense exceeded 30%. These counties were Del Norte, Imperial, Mariposa, Sierra, Tehama, and Trinity. Twenty one counties had nonconviction rates of less than 10%, ( 10 counties did not have available conviction data). This is shown in Table 8.
Variation by Court:
􀂾 Court time lags from arrest to conviction ( for courts with more than 200 reported convictions) varied from a high of 192 days in the Lake court ( Lake County) to a low of 24 days for the Salinas ( Monterey County) court ( see Table B3 in Appendix).
􀂾 Statewide, the proportion of DUI arrests resulting in reckless driving convictions ( alcohol- and nonalcohol- related) was 9.6% in 2005. Four counties ( Alpine, Del Norte, Inyo and San Francisco) adjudicated more than 20% of their DUI arrests as reckless driving convictions ( see Table 8).
􀂾 Statewide, 16.7% ( 1.6%/ 9.6%) of all DUI- related reckless driving convictions in 2005 are inappropriately designated as nonalcohol, slightly down from 17.2% in 2004, and 17.7% in 2003 ( see Table 8).
Demographic Characteristics:
􀂾 The median age of a convicted DUI offender in 2005 was 31.0 years ( see Table 4).
􀂾 49.6% of 2005 DUI convictees were 30 years of age or younger and 73.4% were 40 years or younger ( see Table 4).
16
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
􀂾 Females comprised 17.4% of convicted DUI offenders arrested in 2005 ( see Table 4). The proportion of females among convicted DUI offenders has risen slightly each year since 1994.
􀂾 The racial/ ethnic distribution of 2005 DUI convictions ( White = 42.9%; Hispanic = 43.9%; Black = 6.6%; “ Other” = 6.5%) generally paralleled that of 2005 arrests, although Whites were somewhat more likely than other racial/ ethnic groups to be convicted of the offense ( as shown in Figure 5 and Table 6 below).
1.050.960.940.980.00.20.40.60.81.01.2WhiteHispanicBlackOtherRELATIVE PROBABILITY
Figure 5. Relative likelihood of conviction by race/ ethnicity. ( Adjusted conviction rate of ethnicity ÷ overall conviction rate.)
TABLE 4: 2005 DUI CONVICTIONS BY AGE AND SEX*
TOTAL
MALE
FEMALE
AGE
N
%
N
%
N
%
STATEWIDE
140879
100.0
116340
82.6
24539
17.4
UNDER 18
579
0.4
484
83.6
95
16.4
18- 20
9957
7.1
8219
82.5
1738
17.5
21- 30
59368
42.1
49459
83.3
9909
16.7
31- 40
33460
23.8
28014
83.7
5446
16.3
41- 50
24339
17.3
19144
78.7
5195
21.3
51- 60
10076
7.2
8365
83.0
1711
17.0
61- 70
2490
1.8
2142
86.0
348
14.0
71 & ABOVE
610
0.4
513
84.1
97
15.9
MEAN AGE ( YEARS)
33.5
33.4
33.9
MEDIAN AGE ( YEARS)
31.0
31.0
31.0
* County- specific tabulations of 2005 DUI convictions by age and sex are shown in Appendix Table B2.
17
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 8: ADJUDICATION STATUS OF 2005 DUI ARRESTS BY COUNTY1
DUI
CONVICTIONS
RECKLESS DRIVING
CONVICTIONS
% NO RECORD
COUNTY
%
MISDEMEANOR
%
FELONY
% ALCOHOL
RELATED
% NONALCOHOL
RELATED
% OTHER
CONVICTIONS
OF ANY
CONVICTION2
STATEWIDE
75.8
2.3
8.0
1.6
1.9
10.3
ALAMEDA
68.7
0.9
9.5
1.4
1.9
17.6
ALPINE
59.3
3.7
25.9
3.7
3.7
3.7
AMADOR
84.2
2.3
11.3
2.3
1.3
N/ A
BUTTE
72.3
3.1
14.3
4.5
1.8
3.8
CALAVERAS
61.0
4.5
11.8
0.3
1.9
20.4
COLUSA
65.3
1.4
16.3
3.1
0.3
13.6
CONTRA COSTA
88.0
3.2
12.5
0.3
1.4
N/ A
DEL NORTE
38.2
2.1
22.3
0.6
3.7
33.0
EL DORADO
76.4
3.2
12.3
2.1
0.7
5.3
FRESNO
68.5
1.7
7.1
0.9
0.8
21.0
GLENN
62.6
1.0
11.0
2.5
2.5
20.2
HUMBOLDT
51.8
2.6
18.0
1.9
2.3
23.5
IMPERIAL
51.6
1.4
2.3
10.5
0.7
33.6
INYO
71.6
3.7
21.6
1.8
0.9
0.5
KERN
77.9
1.8
9.7
2.0
1.2
7.3
KINGS
72.4
2.2
6.3
2.5
0.9
15.7
LAKE
73.3
3.2
6.3
3.4
0.8
13.0
LASSEN
83.2
0.8
4.1
4.5
2.9
4.5
LOS ANGELES
73.2
1.1
7.3
1.6
3.9
12.9
MADERA
61.9
2.6
8.5
2.5
0.8
23.8
MARIN
82.1
1.4
0.1
0.3
3.9
12.1
MARIPOSA3
50.8
1.5
8.1
4.6
2.5
32.5
MENDOCINO
69.2
4.6
15.9
3.7
0.3
6.3
MERCED
63.9
1.9
9.4
0.8
1.0
23.0
MODOC
68.1
4.2
8.3
4.2
1.4
13.9
MONO
98.4
0.0
9.6
2.4
0.8
N/ A
MONTEREY
84.4
1.9
6.2
1.9
1.2
4.4
NAPA
82.7
3.2
9.1
0.5
1.3
3.3
NEVADA
81.6
3.2
15.7
1.4
1.1
N/ A
ORANGE
87.0
2.8
4.7
0.4
1.1
3.9
PLACER
92.0
3.8
6.1
1.8
0.5
N/ A
PLUMAS
75.1
1.4
13.6
1.8
0.0
8.1
RIVERSIDE
79.3
2.9
0.7
2.2
1.1
13.8
SACRAMENTO
71.6
3.1
10.0
0.3
1.3
13.7
SAN BENITO
91.2
4.2
5.0
2.1
1.3
N/ A
SAN BERNARDINO
74.9
3.8
2.7
2.2
2.5
13.9
SAN DIEGO
79.6
2.8
10.1
1.7
0.9
5.0
SAN FRANCISCO
58.9
3.5
14.6
11.4
2.9
8.7
SAN JOAQUIN
71.5
2.9
8.9
1.1
1.3
14.3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
72.7
3.3
15.6
1.6
4.7
2.1
SAN MATEO
74.3
1.3
14.4
0.5
1.9
7.6
SANTA BARBARA
84.1
4.8
10.7
3.3
1.6
N/ A
SANTA CLARA
80.0
3.1
10.2
2.1
1.2
3.4
SANTA CRUZ
80.9
1.4
9.4
1.2
1.1
5.9
SHASTA
88.9
8.8
8.9
0.3
1.3
N/ A
SIERRA
30.1
3.6
16.9
0.0
0.0
49.4
SISKIYOU
69.9
4.7
18.1
0.5
0.8
6.0
SOLANO
85.2
2.2
13.3
2.0
1.0
N/ A
SONOMA
75.3
4.2
18.5
1.1
0.8
0.2
STANISLAUS
60.5
2.4
8.7
1.5
0.9
25.9
SUTTER
71.2
4.7
18.0
1.3
1.7
3.2
TEHAMA
55.2
2.2
9.3
1.0
0.3
32.0
TRINITY
34.3
1.8
8.3
4.7
3.0
47.9
TULARE
73.0
2.4
1.2
1.2
2.0
20.2
TUOLUMNE
81.7
4.6
15.2
0.2
0.9
N/ A
VENTURA
85.8
1.7
0.0
0.0
1.6
10.8
YOLO
71.8
3.0
15.6
1.4
0.4
7.9
YUBA
58.4
2.7
13.8
1.2
1.1
22.9
1The percentages total to 100 by row ( county).
2These include failure- to- appear ( FTA) notices; the statewide average is 4.4%.
3The calculation of the conviction rates was based on total arrests including federal DUI arrests ( Yosemite National Park) not reported in the DOJ MACR system.
N/ A - These counties had more total convictions than arrests, which could be due to arrests occurring in a different county from the county of conviction, or due to underreported arrests by arresting agencies, or underreported arrests by federal agencies ( reporting not required by the DOJ MACR system). 21
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 9a: 2005 REPORTED* BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION
( BAC) LEVELS OF DUI CONVICTIONS
DUI CONVICTIONS
ALCOHOL- RECKLESS CONVICTIONS
BAC LEVEL
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
BAC LEVEL
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
.00
1726
1.5
.00
303
2.6
.01
90
0.1
.01
14
0.1
.02
70
0.1
.02
15
0.1
.03
74
0.1
.03
19
0.2
.04
69
0.1
.04
38
0.3
.05
172
0.2
.05
85
0.7
.06
222
0.2
.06
209
1.8
.07
539
0.5
.07
663
5.8
.08
2177
1.9
.08
2764
24.0
.09
3832
3.3
.09
3190
27.7
.10
6554
5.7
.10
1877
16.3
.11
8419
7.3
.11
843
7.3
.12
8822
7.6
.12
434
3.8
.13
9027
7.8
.13
267
2.3
.14
8897
7.7
.14
199
1.7
.15
8604
7.4
.15
126
1.1
.16
8253
7.1
.16
111
1.0
.17
7598
6.6
.17
89
0.8
.18
6949
6.0
.18
65
0.6
.19
6099
5.3
.19
62
0.5
.20
5257
4.6
.20
30
0.3
.21
4485
3.9
.21
21
0.2
.22
3596
3.1
.22
18
0.2
.23
2984
2.6
.23
21
0.2
.24
2404
2.1
.24
10
0.1
.25
1967
1.7
.25
10
0.1
.26
1504
1.3
.26
6
0.1
.27
1168
1.0
.27
4
0.0
.28
937
0.8
.28
4
0.0
.29
745
0.6
.29
2
0.0
.30
572
0.5
.30
2
0.0
.31
410
0.4
.31
2
0.0
.32
327
0.3
.32
1
0.0
.33
230
0.2
.33
2
0.0
.34
197
0.2
.39
1
0.0
.35
148
0.1
.36
123
0.1
.37
87
0.1
.38
46
0.0
.39
62
0.1
.40
47
0.0
.41
23
0.0
.42
15
0.0
.43
14
0.0
.44
9
0.0
.45
9
0.0
.46
8
0.0
.47
2
0.0
.48
2
0.0
.49
2
0.0
.50
2
0.0
.51
3
0.0
.60
1
0.0
---------
------
-------
------
TOTAL
115579
100.0
TOTAL
11507
100.0
MEAN** BAC .16
MEDIAN** BAC .15
MEAN** BAC .10
MEDIAN** BAC .09
* The source of BAC data is the APS reporting form, which replaced the abstract of conviction used in earlier reports. This change in data source was made because of the more complete BAC reporting on APS forms ( 82.0% of total).
** The calculation of the mean and median BAC level does not include zero BAC levels which could be DUI drug convictions.
22
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 9b: 2005 REPORTED* BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION ( BAC) LEVELS OF CONVICTED DUI OFFENDERS UNDER AGE 21
BAC LEVEL
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
BAC LEVEL
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
.00
182
2.1
.21
196
2.3
.01
27
0.3
.22
141
1.6
.02
19
0.2
.23
117
1.4
.03
9
0.1
.24
66
0.8
.04
20
0.2
.25
47
0.5
.05
53
0.6
.26
35
0.4
.06
83
1.0
.27
22
0.3
.07
152
1.8
.28
17
0.2
.08
305
3.5
.29
8
0.1
.09
493
5.7
.30
6
0.1
.10
655
7.6
.31
4
0.1
.11
842
9.8
.33
3
0.0
.12
801
9.3
.34
1
0.0
.13
744
8.6
.36
1
0.0
.14
701
8.1
.37
1
0.0
.15
644
7.5
.43
2
0.0
.16
575
6.7
.17
540
6.3
------------
--------------
.18
464
5.4
TOTAL
8627
100.0
.19
381
4.4
.20
270
3.1
MEAN** BAC .14
MEDIAN** BAC .14
* The source of BAC data is the APS reporting form for arrested DUI offenders. The percentage of BAC levels found on these forms for 2005 convicted under age 21 cases is 81.9%.
** The calculation of the mean and median BAC level does not include zero BAC levels which could be DUI drug convictions.
TABLE 10: 2005 DUI CONVICTIONS BY OFFENDER STATUS AND REPORTED BAC LEVEL
DUI OFFENDER STATUS
PERCENT
AVERAGE BAC LEVEL FROM APS REPORTING FORM (%)
MEDIAN BAC LEVEL FROM APS REPORTING FORM (%)
STATEWIDE
100.0
.16
.15
1ST DUI
72.9
.16
.15
2ND DUI
20.1
.17
.16
3RD DUI
5.3
.18
.18
4TH+ DUI
1.7
.19
.18
23
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
SECTION 3: POSTCONVICTION SANCTIONS
Data on court sanctions assigned to convicted DUI offenders were obtained from DUI abstracts of conviction for offenders arrested in 2005. Although counts of postconviction court license actions are included, total counts of all license actions, including DMV administrative per se ( APS) license suspensions and revocations, are shown in the Administrative Actions Section. APS actions ( effective July 1990) are initiated by law enforcement immediately upon arrest for DUI, and are administered independently of the criminal adjudication process. As of September 20, 2005, SB 1697 ( Torlakson) gave DMV sole responsibility for imposing postconviction license actions on DUI offenders; therefore, courts no longer have the authority to impose license actions on DUI offenders. This procedural change results in a declining count of court license restrictions and suspensions. This section includes the following tables:
Table 11: 2005 DUI Court Sanctions by DUI Offender Status. This table shows the frequency of specific court sanctions statewide by number of prior DUI convictions. The specific court sanctions tallied include percentages of probation, jail, alcohol treatment programs ( first offender, 18- month, and 30- month alcohol programs), license restriction, court suspension, and ignition interlock. Cross tabulations of sanctions by county, court, and number of prior convictions appear in Appendix Table B4.
Table 12: 2005 DUI Court Sanctions by County and Offender Status. This table displays the distribution of court sanctions by county for all DUI offenders.
From the data in these tables and those in Appendix B4, it is evident that the use of alternative sanctions continued to vary widely by county, court, and offender status in 2005. For example:
Statewide Parameters:
􀂾 The court sanction most frequently applied to all convicted DUI offenders was probation ( 96.6%), while the least frequently used court sanction was ignition interlock ( 4.3%). DUI offenders were sentenced to jail in 74.6% of the cases. ( However, in many jurisdictions, jail is often served as community service rather than actual jail time.) This is shown in Table 11.
24
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
Figure 6 ( below) graphically displays the statewide data from Table 11 showing the percentage representation of specific types of court- ordered sanctions among all convicted DUI offenders. Because virtually all offenders receive more than one type of sanction, the cumulative percentage adds to much more than 100%.
96.674.684.551.26.14.30255075100PERCENTAGEProbationJail   DUI   programLicenserestriction* Court licensesuspension* Ignitioninterlock
* As of 09/ 20/ 2005, license restriction and suspension sanctions are no longer imposed by courts, but by DMV only.
Figure 6. Percentage of representation of court- ordered DUI sanctions ( 2005).
County Variation:
􀂾 The proportion of first- DUI offenders arrested in 2005 who received a court postconviction suspension varied by county, from 37.2% in Monterey County, to 0% in Sierra County ( see Table 12).
􀂾 The use of first DUI offender alcohol programs for the first- DUI offenders varies by county, from over 90% in 15 counties to 10.2% in Santa Barbara County ( see Table 12).
Court Variation:
􀂾 Statewide, courts vary significantly in how they use available sanctions for DUI offenders. In Los Angeles County alone, one court ( Lancaster) assigned jail to 95.5%
25
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
of all convicted DUI offenders ( n = 1,130), while another court ( Malibu) in the same county assigned jail to only 19.4% of all convicted DUI offenders ( n = 247). This is shown in Table B4 in the Appendix.
􀂾 In 2005, 0.2% DUI offenders were referred to 30- month alcohol treatment program. Assignment of DUI offenders ( mostly third- or- more) to 30- month programs was low, and varied significantly by court ( see Table B4 in the Appendix).
􀂾 Statewide, courts required only 4.3% of all convicted DUI offenders to install an ignition interlock device in 2005. This is down from 6.3% in 1997 and 1998, primarily because legislation in 1999 shifted the mandatory interlock requirement from all repeat DUI offenders to all suspended or revoked DUI offenders caught driving while disqualified, and data on the new “ mandatory” suspended or revoked interlock assignments are not captured by the DUI- MIS report.
Variation by Offender Status:
􀂾 About 75% of first- DUI offenders arrested in 2005 were sentenced to jail, compared to over 90% of all repeat offenders ( see Table 11).
􀂾 87.2% of first- DUI offenders were assigned by courts to alcohol treatment programs, along with 83.9% of second offenders, 65.2% of third offenders, and 34.8% of fourth- or- more DUI offenders. This is shown in Table 11. ( By statute, however, all offenders must eventually complete specified alcohol treatment programs in order to be eligible for license reinstatement).
􀂾 5.5% of first- DUI offenders and 7.7% of repeat- DUI offenders received court postconviction license suspensions in 2005 ( see Table 11). Court license actions are declining as a result of the law change described above. Under the APS law ( since July 1990), all DUI offenders with BAC levels of 0.08% or more are also subject to a 30- day to 1- year administrative license suspension, or two to three year revocation.
􀂾 13.3% of repeat- DUI offenders were assigned ignition interlock in 2005, compared to 14.0% in 2004, 12.9% in 2003, 10.9% in 2002, 8.1% in 2001, 7.5% in 2000, 13.3% in 1999 and 22.3% in 1998. In spite of the old mandatory interlock law for all repeat
26
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
offenders ( AB 2851 - Freidman), which took effect on July 1, 1993, judges routinely did not assign interlock to these offenders ( over 75% of “ mandatory” assignments were not made). This law was repealed in 1998, and a new ignition interlock law ( AB 762 - Torlakson) and program was enacted and implemented July 1, 1999, that established mandatory interlock for DUI suspension/ revocation violators, while providing incentives for repeat offenders to reinstate early with interlock. Judicial assignments to the new mandatory provisions have steadily risen since the law was implemented, and proportionally more DUI suspension violators are now assigned to interlock than were repeat offenders under the old “ mandatory” law.
TABLE 11: 2005 DUI COURT SANCTIONS BY DUI OFFENDER STATUS*
DUI
OFFENDER
STATUS
TOTAL
PROBATION
JAIL
1ST
OFFENDER
ALCOHOL
PROGRAM
18- MONTH
ALCOHOLPROGRAM
30- MONTH
PROGRAM
LICENSE RESTRICTION
COURT SUSPENSION
IGNITION
INTERLOCK
N
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
STATEWIDE
140879
96.6
74.6
65.0
19.3
0.2
51.2
6.1
4.3
1ST DUI
102702
97.8
67.5
84.7
2.5
0.0
55.9
5.5
0.9
REPEAT DUI
38177
93.3
93.6
11.8
64.7
0.6
38.6
7.7
13.3
2ND DUI
28207
96.6
93.3
14.2
69.6
0.1
47.2
6.6
11.8
3RD DUI
7439
91.9
94.2
5.5
57.5
2.2
17.3
11.9
19.8
4TH+ DUI
2531
60.9
94.7
2.6
31.1
1.1
6.1
7.9
10.9
* Entries represent percentages of 2005 DUI convictees receiving each sanction, by offender status. Sanctions within each offender status group ( row) are not independent; therefore, row percentages always add to more than 100%. Percentages of sanctions by county and court appear in Appendix Table B4.
27
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
36
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
SECTION 4: POSTCONVICTION SANCTION EFFECTIVENESS
This section presents reoffense and crash rates of DUI offenders over various time periods, as well as the methodology and results of evaluations assessing the effectiveness of alcohol education programs applied to drivers convicted for the first time of an alcohol- related offense.
The first part of the section examines descriptive indicators, such as DUI recidivism and crash rates, for different groups of DUI offenders within different periods of time: 1) one- year DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders from 1990- 2005, 2) one- year DUI recidivism and crash rates by county, for 2005 first and second DUI offenders, 3) proportions of alcohol program referrals for 2005 first and second DUI offenders, and 4) long term recidivism rates of the 1994 DUI offenders.
The second part of the section contains the results of several sanction analyses evaluating the effectiveness of alcohol education programs for two groups of DUI offenders: 1) drivers convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol- related reckless driving, and 2) first DUI offenders, who attended 3- month or 6- month alcohol education programs.
Also in the second part of the section, and like last year, are two additional subanalyses: 1) an evaluation of 6- month alcohol education programs for first DUI offenders with BAC levels below 0.20% versus first DUI offenders with BAC levels of 0.20% or above, and 2) an evaluation of the relative effectiveness of 3- month versus 6- month alcohol education programs for first DUI offenders with BAC levels of 0.20% and above.
The following are highlights of the findings:
􀂾 The 1- year recidivism rates for all first offenders in 2005 continued to remain at the lower level of the past seven years. The DUI reoffense rate for first offenders arrested in 2005 was 38.2% lower than the reoffense rate for first offenders arrested in 1990 ( see Figure 7 and Table 13a).
􀂾 While the 1- year reoffense rate for second offenders has leveled out for the past 10 years, these rates are substantially lower than the rates during the early 1990s; recidivism decreased from 9.7% in 1990 to 5.6% in 2005, a 42.3% relative decrease for all second offenders ( see Figure 7 and Table 13a).
􀂾 Overall, subsequent 1- year crash rates among second offenders have declined from 4.0% in 1990 to 3.0% in 2005, a 25.0% relative decrease; although their rate was the
37
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
lowest in 1996, crashes have continued to gradually increase in recent years for all second offenders. The crash rate for first offenders steadily increased from 1993 to 2001, and has decreased since then. The 2005 rate remains 9.4% lower than the 1990 crash rate ( see Figure 8 and Table 13a).
􀂾 Of those arrested in 2005, 85.1% of first offenders were referred to an alcohol education program, while 70.1% of second offenders were referred to the 18- month treatment program ( see Table 14).
􀂾 At the end of 12 years, 28% of DUI offenders originally convicted in 1994 had at least one subsequent DUI conviction, and 32% incurred at least one DUI incident ( see Figure 9a).
􀂾 Over 12 years, recidivism rates increased as the number of prior offenses increased. The proportion of third offenders reoffending was 39%, while 32% of second offenders and 25% of first offenders reoffended ( see Figure 9b).
􀂾 Males showed a much higher cumulative proportion ( 29%) of reoffenses than did females ( 21%) over the 12- year time period ( see Figure 9c).
􀂾 Long- term recidivism rates are inversely related to age, with higher reoffense rates associated with the youngest age group, and lowest rates with the oldest group ( see Figure 9d).
􀂾 After 5 years, the proportion of DUI offenders reoffending in the 1994 group was much lower ( 18%) compared to the proportion reoffending in the 1984 group ( 27%) and in the 1980 group ( 35%). The 2000 group of DUI offenders had the lowest proportion of reoffenses ( 17%). This is shown in Figure 9e.
􀂾 Similar to the last three years’ evaluations, this year’s results continue to show that the subsequent 1- year crash rates of alcohol- related reckless offenders assigned to an alcohol education program did not vary significantly from those of the nonparticipants. In contrast to the previous two years’ evaluations, the subsequent DUI incident rates of the program participants were not significantly lower than those of the nonparticipants ( see Table 16a).
􀂾 Similar to the last four years’ evaluations, the 1- year crash rates of first offenders attending the 3- month program were not significantly higher than those attending 6- month programs. However, as consistently evident in previous evaluations, the
38
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
subsequent DUI incident rate of the short- term program participants was again significantly ( p < .0001) lower than that of the long- term participants ( see Table 16b).
􀂾 Among first DUI offenders assigned to 6- month alcohol treatment programs, crash rates of the offenders with BAC levels 0.20% and above were higher than the crash rates of those with BAC levels below 0.20%, but this result, while close, did not reach statistical significance ( p = .055). Previous analyses also did not show significant crash differences between the two groups. However, DUI offenders with BAC levels 0.20% and above had significantly ( p < .004) more DUI incidents ( 30.5%) than those with BAC levels below 0.20% ( see Table 16c). This finding was evident in the past two year’s evaluations.
􀂾 Consistent with the past two years’ results, the length of time of alcohol treatment program ( 3- month vs. 6- month) had no effect on crash rates and DUI incidents for first DUI offenders with BAC levels 0.20% and above ( see Table 16d).
Subject Selection and Data Collection: Convicted DUI and alcohol- related reckless offenders were identified from monthly abstract update tapes which contain all DUI conviction data reported to DMV by the courts. Except for the 1994 cases, subjects were selected based on the number of prior DUI and alcohol- related reckless driving convictions within ten years ( instead of seven years due to a law change effective January 1, 2005) prior to their entry DUI arrest in 2005. For this year’s report, subjects selected were: 1) first- DUI offenders— drivers who had no DUI or alcohol- related reckless driving convictions within the previous ten years, 2) second- DUI offenders— drivers who had one DUI or alcohol- related reckless driving conviction within the previous ten years, 3) alcohol- related reckless offenders with no previous DUI offenses in the past ten years, and 4) first- DUI offenders referred to 3- month and 6- month alcohol education programs. In addition, all DUI offenders arrested in 1994 were selected for the 12- year follow- up evaluation.
The crash and recidivism rates of first and second DUI offenders over time, and the effectiveness of alcohol education programs for persons convicted of an alcohol- reckless or first DUI offense, are evaluated in terms of postconviction driving record, as measured by: 1) total crashes and 2) DUI incidents, which include alcohol- involved crashes, DUI convictions, Administrative Per Se suspensions ( APS for 0.08% BAC or chemical test refusal), and DUI failure- to- appear notices ( FTA). For the 1994 DUI offenders, recidivism is measured by subsequent DUI convictions, along with one comparison of DUI incidents.
39
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
Although the sanction analyses are not conducted for first- and second- DUI offenders as in previous years, the 1- year unadjusted crash and DUI reoffense data from all of the previous and current evaluations were included. In order to maintain comparability to the previous subject selection criteria, certain types of offenders had to be excluded. These previous and current analyses excluded offenders with felony convictions and chemical test refusal suspensions because their license control penalties were different from the misdemeanor offender groups. Drivers who did not have a full 1- year subsequent time period ( because of late conviction dates) were also excluded, as were drivers with “ X” license numbers ( meaning that no California license number could be found) and drivers with out- of- state ZIP Codes. Altogether, the excluded cases represented about 25.5% of the original convicted offender file. The only exclusions made for the 1994 offenders were the out- of- state cases and drivers with “ X” license numbers.
DUI RECIDIVISM AND CRASH RATES
One- Year DUI Recidivism and Crash Rates for First and Second DUI Offenders from 1990- 2005
The 1- year subsequent DUI- incident reoffense rates for both first- and second- offender sanction groups were compiled from the 16 previous and current annual DUI- MIS evaluations and configured onto two separate graphs to display these rates over time.
Figure 7 shows the proportions of first- and second- offender sanction groups, respectively, arrested between 1990 and 2005 who reoffended within one year after conviction.
40
19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420050246810First offendersSecond offendersYEARFigure 7.  Percentages of first‐  and second‐ DUI offenders reoffending in a DUI incident within one year after conviction ( arrested in 1990‐ 2005). PERCENTAGEREOFFENDING IN 1 YEAR 2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
This figure and Table 13a show an ongoing gradual decline in the 1- year recidivism rates for first- offenders overall from 1990 to 2005; although there is a slight upward trend from 1996 to 1998, this trend is followed by an overall decline of the rates over the past 7 years. The overall decline translates into a 38.2% reduction in recidivism for all first offenders compared to the rates of 1990. The decline in DUI reoffenses is steeper in the early years ( 1990- 1994), following the enactment of APS suspensions for all DUI arrestees. As is evident in Figure 7, the reoffense rates of first offenders continue to be lower than those of the second offenders; this has been consistently evident throughout all previous analyses conducted on first and second offenders.
TABLE 13a: ONE- YEAR UNADJUSTED PERCENTAGES OF SUBSEQUENT DUI- INCIDENT- INVOLVED AND CRASH- INVOLVED FIRST AND SECOND OFFENDERS, 1990- 2005
DUI- INCIDENT- INVOLVED
CRASH- INVOLVED
YEAR
FIRST- DUI OFFENDERS
SECOND- DUI OFFENDERS
FIRST- DUI OFFENDERS
SECOND- DUI OFFENDERS
1990
7.6
9.7
5.3
4.0
1991
7.1
9.5
4.7
3.6
1992
6.2
9.1
4.1
3.5
1993
5.8
8.8
4.1
3.5
1994
5.4
7.0
4.5
3.1
1995
5.8
7.0
4.6
3.0
1996
5.1
6.1
4.5
2.4
1997
5.2
6.0
4.7
2.7
1998
5.3
6.0
4.8
2.6
1999
5.0
6.1
5.0
2.8
2000
4.9
6.1
5.1
3.1
2001
4.9
5.9
5.2
3.0
2002
4.8
6.1
5.1
3.3
2003
4.7
6.5
4.8
3.2
2004
4.5
5.9
4.8
3.1
2005
4.7
5.6
4.8
3.0
% DIFFERENCE
1990- 2005
- 38.2%
- 42.3%
- 9.4%
- 25.0%
As noted in the past 2 years, a similar overall decline is evident in the 1- year reoffense rates for the second offender group as displayed in Figure 7 and Table 13a. The rate of decline is greatest during the years from 1993 to 1996, with a leveling out for several
41
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
years, followed by a slight decline in 2001; from 2001 to 2003 there is a modest increase, followed by a decline in 2004 and 2005. Table 13a shows that, from 1990 to 2005, the reoffense rates decreased 42.3% for the second offender group as a whole. The overall reoffense rates of second offenders remain higher than those of first offenders. Previous DUI- MIS reports suggested that, while many factors may be associated with the overall decline in DUI incidents for both first and second offenders, the reduction may largely be attributed to the implementation of APS suspensions in 1990. An evaluation ( Rogers, 1997) of the California APS Law documents recidivism reductions of up to 21.1% for first offenders, and 19.5% for repeat offenders, attributable to the law.
The 1- year subsequent crash rates for both first and second offenders were also compiled from previous and current DUI- MIS evaluations and graphically displayed over time. Figure 8 shows the proportions of 1990- 2005 first and second offenders who had crashes within one year after their conviction.
19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420050123456First offenderSecond offenderPERCENTAGECRASH- INVOLVED IN 1 YEARFigure 8.  Percentages of first‐ and second‐ DUI offenders involved in a crash within one year after conviction ( arrested in 1990‐ 2005). YEAR
Among first offenders from 1990 through 2005, Figure 8 and Table 13a show an initial decline in crash rates for the earliest years, followed by an ongoing increase after 1993, and slight decline after 2002. The relative difference between first offender crash rates between 1990 and 2005 is the same as last year’s, - 9.4%, whereas the relative difference for second offenders for those same years, which is slightly greater than last year, shows a much greater decline in crash involvement of - 25.0%.
42
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
Figure 8 indicates a declining trend in the overall crash rate of second offenders up to 1996. Following the downward trend in crashes from 1990 through 1996, the crash rates gradually increase and continue on a slow upward trend, dropping slightly in 2001, increasing again in 2002, and decreasing slightly through 2005. Overall, second offenders have lower crash rates than do first offenders ( Table 13a), and this fact has been well documented in past evaluations; it has been speculated that the lower crash rate of second offenders may be related to the longer- term ( one to two years) license ( restriction/ suspension) actions imposed on second offenders.
One- Year DUI Recidivism and Crash Rates by County for First and Second DUI Offenders Arrested in 2005
For the third year, the 1- year subsequent DUI recidivism and crash rates, by county, are reported for both first and second DUI offenders.
Table 13b displays the 1- year subsequent DUI recidivism rates of offenders arrested in 2005. As shown in this table, among the larger counties, the rate at which first offenders had a subsequent DUI incident within one year varied from 6.7% in San Joaquin County to 3.6% in Orange County. Among the smaller counties, Butte, Modoc, and Shasta had DUI recidivism rates at or above 8.5%, while Alpine, Sierra, and Trinity had zero DUI recidivism rates. Second offenders had generally higher DUI recidivism rates than first offenders. Among the larger counties, Fresno County had again the highest rate, with 8.4% of second offenders having a subsequent DUI incident within one year whereas Orange County’s second offenders had the lowest rate of 4.0% for subsequent DUI incidents. Among the smaller counties, the DUI recidivism rate for second offenders ranged from 12.5% ( Mendocino and Modoc) to 0.0% ( Alpine, Lake, Lassen, San Benito, Sierra, and Trinity).
One- year subsequent crash rates, by county, for both first and second offenders arrested in 2005 are displayed in Table 13c. Among the larger counties, the rate at which first offenders had a subsequent crash within one year varied from 5.7% in Santa Clara County to 3.8% in San Diego County. Among the smaller counties, Tehama had a crash rate of 7.9%, while Alpine, Sierra, and Trinity had a 0.0% crash rate. In contrast to DUI recidivism rates, second offenders have generally lower crash rates than first offenders. Among the larger counties, the rate at which second offenders have a subsequent crash within one year varied from 4.6% ( San Joaquin) to 2.0% ( Orange and San Mateo). Among the smaller counties, one county had a crash rate above 16.7% ( Del Norte), and nine counties had 0.0% crash rates ( Alpine, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, San Benito, Sierra, Trinity, and Yuba).
43
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 13b. 2005 1- YEAR SUBSEQUENT DUI RECIDIVISM RATES BY COUNTY FOR FIRST AND SECOND OFFENDERS
1ST OFFENDER
2ND OFFENDER
COUNTY
N
%
N
%
STATEWIDE
3342
4.7
1118
5.6
ALAMEDA 126
4.9
40
6.0
ALPINE
0
0.0
0
0.0
AMADOR
5
3.7
2
4.0
BUTTE
54
8.8
15
6.9
CALAVERAS
8
7.0
3
8.6
COLUSA
4
4.3
2
5.1
CONTRA COSTA
78
4.9
24
5.0
DEL NORTE
3
5.0
2
11.1
EL DORADO
24
4.5
7
4.0
FRESNO
140
6.6
57
8.4
GLENN
10
6.4
5
7.7
HUMBOLDT
15
4.1
5
3.9
IMPERIAL
15
4.6
1
1.3
INYO
5
6.0
3
8.3
KERN
100
5.4
33
5.4
KINGS
16
4.9
8
6.3
LAKE
2
1.4
0
0.0
LASSEN
2
2.1
0
0.0
LOS ANGELES
576
3.9
199
5.1
MADERA
8
4.1
5
7.0
MARIN
28
3.9
7
4.3
MARIPOSA
4
6.9
3
12.5
MENDOCINO
20
7.3
5
4.9
MERCED
37
6.8
6
3.7
MODOC 3
12.5
1
12.5
MONO
1
2.1
1
3.6
MONTEREY
45
4.8
22
6.6
NAPA
17
4.6
8
5.9
NEVADA
19
5.9
2
2.1
ORANGE
240
3.6
65
4.0
PLACER
56
5.6
9
3.6
PLUMAS
7
7.9
1
3.0
RIVERSIDE 174
4.5
60
6.0
SACRAMENTO
162
6.0
61
6.9
SAN BENITO
10
6.4
0
0.0
SAN BERNARDINO
237
5.3
77
6.5
SAN DIEGO
297
4.2
98
5.3
SAN FRANCISCO
27
5.6
3
3.1
SAN JOAQUIN
92
6.7
32
7.0
SAN LUIS OBISPO
57
6.3
17
6.1
SAN MATEO
39
2.9
10
3.3
SANTA BARBARA
38
3.6
21
6.9
SANTA CLARA
107
3.9
30
4.1
SANTA CRUZ
33
4.8
15
7.0
SHASTA
36
8.5
13
7.1
SIERRA
0
0.0
0
0.0
SISKIYOU
6
5.3
4
8.3
SOLANO
38
5.1
19
7.9
SONOMA
60
5.6
17
5.4
STANISLAUS
55
6.1
15
6.4
SUTTER
12
7.4
5
11.6
TEHAMA
7
3.7
8
8.2
TRINITY
0
0.0
0
0.0
TULARE
61
5.5
30
8.1
TUOLUMNE
11
5.0
6
7.9
VENTURA
71
4.0
24
5.6
YOLO
33
7.3
10
6.8
YUBA
11
6.5
2
3.8
44
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 13c. 2005 1- YEAR SUBSEQUENT CRASH RATES BY COUNTY FOR FIRST AND SECOND OFFENDERS
1ST OFFENDER
2ND OFFENDER
COUNTY
N
%
N
%
STATEWIDE
3450
4.8
596
3.0
ALAMEDA 120
4.6
19
2.8
ALPINE
0
0.0
0
0.0
AMADOR
10
7.5
3
6.0
BUTTE
27
4.4
9
4.1
CALAVERAS
1
0.9
1
2.9
COLUSA
2
2.2
2
5.1
CONTRA COSTA
76
4.7
11
2.3
DEL NORTE
2
3.3
3
16.7
EL DORADO
29
5.4
5
2.8
FRESNO
77
3.6
19
2.8
GLENN
8
5.1
2
3.1
HUMBOLDT
11
3.0
5
3.9
IMPERIAL 6
1.8
1
1.3
INYO
2
2.4
1
2.8
KERN
70
3.8
15
2.4
KINGS
16
4.9
1
0.8
LAKE
5
3.4
0
0.0
LASSEN
4
4.2
0
0.0
LOS ANGELES
803
5.4
139
3.6
MADERA
4
2.1
2
2.8
MARIN
27
3.8
3
1.8
MARIPOSA
3
5.2
1
4.2
MENDOCINO
13
4.7
1
1.0
MERCED
24
4.4
5
3.1
MODOC 1
4.2
0
0.0
MONO
1
2.1
0
0.0
MONTEREY
38
4.1
7
2.1
NAPA
19
5.1
2
1.5
NEVADA
4
1.2
2
2.1
ORANGE
333
5.0
33
2.0
PLACER
51
5.1
9
3.6
PLUMAS
4
4.5
1
3.0
RIVERSIDE 219
5.6
27
2.7
SACRAMENTO
139
5.2
29
3.3
SAN BENITO
6
3.8
0
0.0
SAN BERNARDINO
243
5.5
48
4.1
SAN DIEGO
272
3.8
43
2.3
SAN FRANCISCO
32
6.7
2
2.1
SAN JOAQUIN
60
4.3
21
4.6
SAN LUIS OBISPO
0
0.0
0
0.0
SAN MATEO
68
5.0
6
2.0
SANTA BARBARA
39
3.7
9
2.9
SANTA CLARA
156
5.7
23
3.1
SANTA CRUZ
29
4.2
11
5.1
SHASTA
33
7.7
7
3.8
SIERRA
0
0.0
0
0.0
SISKIYOU
3
2.6
1
2.1
SOLANO
28
3.7
8
3.3
SONOMA
49
4.6
10
3.2
STANISLAUS
52
5.7
10
4.3
SUTTER
6
3.7
1
2.3
TEHAMA
15
7.9
5
5.2
TRINITY
0
0.0
0
0.0
TULARE
48
4.4
6
1.6
TUOLUMNE
12
5.5
2
2.6
VENTURA
80
4.5
12
2.8
YOLO
25
5.5
3
2.0
YUBA
4
2.4
0
0.0
45
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
The Proportions of Alcohol Education Program Referrals for First and Second DUI Offenders Arrested in 2005
For this current report, the intention was to make an effort to capture the number and proportions of convicted first and second offenders whose records indicated that they had completed an alcohol education/ treatment program; the past two years’ reports include a table showing the proportions of program referrals and completions for these offenders. This effort became possible by the recent addition of a subrecord to each person’s driving record that contains data on program enrollment and completion dates, court information relevant to the DUI conviction, and program length of time. Previous efforts were limited by the lack of organized fields of data even though part of this information was available. However, this year, it was not possible to obtain the program completion data due to a programming change to expand the subrecord, and additional changes to Research’s own program to capture this subrecord were not made in time to support this effort.
Data are available on the proportions of referrals to the various DUI programs for first and second offenders, and these are shown in Table 14. It can be seen from this table that 85.1% of first offenders and 70.1% of second offenders were referred to an alcohol treatment program. First offenders attend alcohol treatment programs that range from 3 to 9 months, depending upon their BAC levels at the time of their arrest. Almost all second offenders attend an 18- month alcohol treatment program, and are allowed to apply for a restricted license after completing one year of license suspension, and showing evidence that they installed an ignition interlock device. To obtain a license restriction, DUI offenders need to have enrolled in an alcohol program and show proof of auto insurance; later, in order to remove the restriction from their driver license, they must have completed the program and continue to maintain proof of insurance.
TABLE 14: COUNTS AND PROPORTIONS OF REPORTED ALCOHOL PROGRAM REFERRALS FOR CONVICTED FIRST AND SECOND OFFENDERS ARRESTED IN 2005
PROGRAM REFERRALS
PROGRAM COMPLETION*
DUI OFFENDERS
TOTAL N
N
%
N
%
1ST OFFENDERS
( 3 MOS. TO 9 MOS.)
102,702
87,425
85.1%
Unavailable
2ND OFFENDERS
( 18 MOS.)
28,207
19,765
70.1%
Unavailable
* Due to a modification of the Drinking Drivers Program Subrecord, information on program enrollment and completion were not immediately available in time for this report.
46
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
Long Term Recidivism Rates of the 1994 DUI Offenders
Since all DUI offenders were included in the 1994 group, it was possible to observe and compare the long- term recidivism rates for subdivided groups within the 1994 cohort, and to see how these groups differ in their long- term recidivism rates. This approach was also taken in a previous study conducted by Peck ( 1991), in which the reoffense failure curves of various groups among 1980 and 1984 DUI offenders were evaluated. Failure curves are cumulative percentages over time that display the first reoffense that occurs after the initial DUI conviction. Both DUI convictions ( alone) and DUI incidents over the 12- year follow- up period for the 1994 group were included as outcome data in order to maintain comparability with the 1984 and 1980 cohorts from a previous evaluation ( Peck, 1991).
Table 15 shows cumulative percentages of the first DUI reoffenses for the 1994 offenders, as well as 9- and 12- year cumulative percentages for the 1980 and 1994 groups and 5- year cumulative percentages for the 1984 group ( dates were not available beyond 5 years).
TABLE 15: CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES OF THE FIRST SUBSEQUENT DUI REOFFENSES FOR 1994 DUI OFFENDERS
PERCENTAGE
YEAR
1ST DUI
2ND DUI
3RD DUI
MALES
FEMALES
16- 25
26- 45
46- 65
65+
1980
1984
1994
1ST
4
6
6
5
3
5
5
4
3
11
7
5
2ND
8
10
12
10
6
10
9
8
6
19
15
9
3RD
12
14
17
13
9
14
13
11
8
25
20
13
4TH
14
18
21
16
11
18
16
13
9
30
24
16
5TH
17
21
25
19
13
20
18
15
10
35
27
18
6TH
19
23
28
22
14
23
21
17
10
38
NA
21
7TH
20
25
31
23
16
25
23
18
11
40
NA
22
8TH
22
27
33
25
17
26
24
19
11
42
NA
24
9TH
23
28
35
26
18
28
25
20
12
44
NA
25
10TH
24
30
36
27
19
29
27
21
12
NA
NA
26
11TH
25
31
38
28
20
30
28
22
12
NA
NA
27
12TH
25
32
39
29
21
31
28
22
12
NA
NA
28
47
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
In addition to Table 15, Figures 9a through 9e, display recidivism rates for 1994 offenders over 12 years.
12345678910111205101520253035611151922242627283031325913161821222425262728All DUI incidentsDUI convictions onlyFigure 9a.  Length of time between 1994 DUI conviction,  and first subsequent DUI conviction and DUI incidents ( alcohol crashes,  major convictions,  APS suspensions and DUI FTAs). CUMULATIVE PRECENTYEAR 
 
Figure 9a shows that,  for 1994 offenders as a whole,  at the end of 12 years 28%  accumulated at least one DUI reoffense.   Considering a more expanded view of DUI reoffenses to include all DUI incidents,  the recidivism rate increased to 32%.   These failure curves are steepest in the earliest years following the initial conviction,  and then start to flatten out but are still rising slightly in the 7th through 12th years.   For both measures,  the steepest climb occurs in the first year following conviction.   Based on Figure 9b,  third or more DUI offenders did recidivate to a greater extent than first or second offenders in the first year following thei  conviction.
   
 
One way to explore the extent of drinking severity is to examine the recidivism rates by the number of prior DUIs within seven  ears ( time frame for counting priors of 1994 offenders)  of the entry DUI violation.   Figure 9b displays the cumulative proportions of reoffenses by first,  second,  and third‐ or‐ more DUI offenders.
 
 
48
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
1234567891011120510152025303540481214171920222324252561014182123252728303132612172125283133353638391st offender2nd offender3rd+ offenderFigure 9b. Length of time between 1994 DUI conviction and first subsequent DUI conviction by number of prior DUI convictions. CUMULATIVE PERCENTYEAR
It is evident from this graph and from Table 15 that the recidivism failure curves increase as the number of prior offenses becomes greater. Third- or- more offenders have the highest overall failure curve, and continue to maintain the higher proportions over the twelve year time period. At the end of 12 years, 39% of third- or- more offenders have reoffended compared to 32% of second offenders and 25% of first offenders.
Since the majority of DUI offenders has always been male ( 87% in 1994), it is relevant to inspect the recidivism rates of the 1994 offenders by gender. As evident in Figure 9c and Table 15, males show much higher cumulative proportions reoffending than females. At the end of 12 years, 29% of males have reoffended as compared to 21% of females. The failure curve of females is noticeably lower and increases at a slower pace throughout the 12 years as compared to the curve of males. In the final 4 years, the proportion of both males and females recidivating is only one percent per year.
49
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
12345678910111205101520253051013161922232526272829369111314161718192021MaleFemaleFigure 9c. Length of time between 1994 DUI conviction and first subsequent DUI conviction by sex. YEARCUMULATIVE PERCENT
Since it is also well known that DUI violations are associated with certain age groups, the recidivism curves are assessed also by age. Figure 9d displays the failure curves of four age groups. It is evident that reoffense rates are inversely related to age; the failure rates are highest for the youngest group and lowest for the oldest group. Over twelve years, the failure curves of the two youngest groups are quite close to each other and are much steeper than the curve of the oldest group; the failure curves of the youngest groups are steepest during the first two years following the entry conviction. The failure curve of the 65+ group flattens out at the 5th year, much sooner than the curves of the other groups. The mortality factor of the oldest group could influence the lower recidivism rate; also, this group may be restricting their driving by driving less frequently than the other age groups. After 12 years, the youngest two groups reoffended by 31% and 28%, respectively, while 22% of the middle age group, for which mortality may also be a factor, and 12% of the oldest group recidivated.
50
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
1234567891011120510152025303551014182023252628293031591316182123242527282848111315171819202122223689101011111212121216- 25 years old26- 45 years old46- 65 years old65+ years oldCUMULATIVE PERCENTYEARFigure 9d. Length of time between 1994 DUI conviction and first subsequent DUI conviction by age group ( age at conviction date).
The final figure, Figure 9e, compares the 1994 recidivism curves with those of the 1980, 1984, and 2000 cohorts over a 5- year time period.
1234505101520253035111925303571520242759131618481215171980 cohort1984 cohort1994 cohort2000 cohortCUMULATIVE PERCENTYEARFigure 9e. Length of time between DUI conviction and first subsequent DUI reoffense of 1980, 1984, 1994, and 2000 DUI drivers. 51
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
Last year, the reoffense rates of the 2000 cohort over the 5- year time period were added along with the cumulative percentages of the 1980, 1984 and 1994 groups ( Figure 9e and Table 15). It is possible to view this long- term historical comparison with consideration of the probable influence of major DUI laws in California over a 20- year time period.
Figure 9e reveals that at the end of five years, 35% of the 1980 offenders reoffended compared to 27% of the 1984 group, 18% of the 1994 offenders and 17% of the 2000 group. Quite dramatically, the proportion recidivating in the 1994 and 2000 groups ( 18%, 17%) dropped by half compared to those in the 1980 group ( 35%). Major pieces of DUI legislation were enacted in California over this time span of 20 years. The noticeably lower reoffense proportions of the 1984 group ( 27%) compared to the 1980 group ( 35%) can likely be attributed to the 1982 laws, AB 541 ( Moorhead), which applied tougher sanctions on DUI offenders, and AB 7 ( Hart) which established the 0.10% per se BAC illegal limit. The effectiveness of these laws was confirmed by a previous California study by Tashima and Peck ( 1986). Table 15, which compares the 1980 cohort with the 1994 group over nine years, shows that 44% of the 1980 group recidivated while 25% of the 1994 group reoffended. The difference between the recidivism rates of these two groups remains quite dramatic at the end of nine years. There was only a one percent increase in recidivism for the 1994 group in the last year of 12 years.
Continuing with Figure 9e, it is evident that the difference in the reoffending proportions between the 1984 group ( 27%) and the 1994 group ( 18%) is substantial; this reduction in reoffenses is possibly attributable to the enactment of the 1990 laws, SB 1623 ( Lockyer), which established APS suspensions for all offenders at the time of arrest, and SB 1150 ( Lockyer), which set the illegal BAC limit to 0.08% and imposed other stringent sanctions on DUI offenders. As noted earlier, an evaluation ( Rogers, 1997) of the California APS law documented recidivism reductions of up to 21.1% for first offenders and 19.5% for repeat offenders, both attributable to the APS law. Figure 9e also shows that the level of reoffenses is very similar for both the 1994 and 2000 cohorts. At each of the five years, the reoffenses of the 2000 offenders were only 1% lower than that of the 1994 group.
In summary, the 1994 offenders have long- term reoffense rates that are higher among those with more DUI priors ( within seven years), among males, and among younger- aged drivers. These are not surprising findings, and are consistent with and supported by previous studies. In comparing the reoffense rates between the 1994 and 2000 groups with the 1980 and 1984 offenders, it was found that the cumulative proportions of reoffenses was much lower among the 1994 and 2000 offenders. The dramatically
52
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
lower reoffense rates of the 1994 and 2000 groups could be attributed to the enactment of more stringent sanctions for DUI offenders in the past two decades, including the APS suspension law of 1990.
ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR THE ALCOHOL- RELATED RECKLESS OFFENDERS AND FIRST DUI OFFENDERS
Subject Selection and Follow- up Data: The basis for evaluating the effectiveness of alcohol education programs for offenders convicted of alcohol- related reckless driving, or of a first DUI offense, was established by legislation. The evaluation for the offenders with alcohol- related reckless convictions was mandated by SB 1176 ( Johnson); for these offenders, this legislation requires the courts to order enrollment in an alcohol/ drug education program as a condition of probation. An evaluation of the efficacy of the 3- month versus 6- month alcohol education/ counseling program for first offenders was mandated by AB 1916 ( Torlakson). In 2004, the courts were required to refer first offenders whose BAC level is less than 0.20% to a 3- month program, and those with a BAC level of 0.20% or above, or who refuse to take a chemical test, to a 6- month program. Effective 2005, AB 1353 ( Liu) increased the duration of alcohol treatment programs from 6 to 9 months for first DUI offenders on probation whose BAC level is 0.20% or greater or who refuse to take a chemical test.
Two groups of alcohol- related reckless convictees were identified, including: 1) those who were assigned to an alcohol education program and 2) those who were not assigned to a program. These sanctions are reported by the courts to DMV via disposition codes on the conviction abstracts. Although courts are mandated to require all alcohol- related reckless drivers to attend an alcohol education program as a condition of probation, it was found that 39% of such offenders were not assigned. This discrepancy allowed a comparison of subsequent crashes and DUI incidents between the two groups.
In evaluating the traffic safety impact of length of time of first offender programs, only first offenders that showed the 3- month and 6- month designations on their conviction abstracts were identified and selected for this analysis. Although, in 2005, the courts were to prescribe 9- month alcohol treatment programs for first offenders whose BAC levels were above 0.20%, it was decided not to investigate the impact of the 9- month treatment programs at this time because the number of those assigned was still quite
53
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
low ( N = 2020). The effectiveness of this longer- term program will be evaluated in next year’s DUI- MIS report.
Unfortunately, the records of 49% of first offenders who were referred to the alcohol education programs did not display the specific length of time. These individuals were not included in this evaluation, and this analysis is limited to first offenders who were adjudicated by courts that were in compliance with the law. Of the total sample selected, 77% were referred to 3- month programs, while 23% were assigned to 6- month programs. Subjects for the initial analyses consisted of first offenders assigned to a 3- month alcohol program versus first offenders assigned to a 6- month program. To further explore the possible effects of BAC levels, two additional subanalyses included 1) first offenders assigned to a 6- month alcohol program with BAC levels below 0.20% versus those with BAC levels of 0.20% and above, and 2) first offenders with BAC levels 0.20% and above assigned to a 3- month alcohol program versus first offenders with BAC levels 0.20% and above assigned to a 6- month alcohol program.
The conviction date for the prior/ post analyses was considered to be the “ treatment date” for defining prior and subsequent driving record data, because the penalties and sanctions for the offense are typically effective as of that date. The evaluation period for the postconviction driving measures starts from the conviction date, and was 1) 1- year following conviction for alcohol- related reckless offenders who were arrested from July, 2005 through June, 2006. 2) 1- year following conviction for first DUI convictees who were arrested in 2005, and who were referred to 3- month and 6- month alcohol education programs.
A buffer period of 4 months was allowed between the end of the evaluation period and the data extraction date to allow for processing and reporting of the most recent data to DMV. DUI offenders who had less than the full one- year follow- up time period ( from conviction date to the buffer period) were excluded. For all of these groups, the outcome driver record measures consisted of the proportion of offenders who were involved in: 1) any crash and 2) DUI incidents ( alcohol- involved crashes, major convictions, APS/ refusal suspensions, or DUI failures- to- appear). Only the first crash or DUI incident or " failure" was evaluated. This is not an important limitation with these data because the incidence of repeat failures ( two or more crashes or DUI incidents) was very low over the study time window. More importantly, analysis of repeat failures would be subject to confounding by court sanctions received in connection with the first failure incident. This type of confounding is avoided because multiple incidents were not included in this analysis.
54
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
Evaluation Design and Analytical Procedures: Since it was not possible to randomly assign drivers to the various sanction groups, potential biases due to preexisting group differences were statistically controlled to the extent possible by using biographical data, prior driving record data, and ZIP Code indices, such as crash and traffic conviction averages for each driver's ZIP Code area ( Appendix Table B5). While this " quasi- experimental" design is subject to a number of limitations in assessing cause- effect relationships, the attempt at statistical control of group differences removes at least part of the bias in group assignment and provides a more precise estimate of the relationship between type of sanction and subsequent record. It is possible, of course, that the groups also differ on characteristics not measured by, or reflected in, the covariates. The possibility of uncontrolled biases becomes particularly problematic if sanctions are commonly received by offenders through self- or judicial- selectivity ( e. g., drivers of higher socio- economic status may be more likely to receive program with restriction and less likely to receive jail than those of lower status).
For the alcohol- related reckless drivers and first offenders attending 3- month and 6- month programs, prior driver record data were extracted for the 2 years preceding their DUI or alcohol- reckless conviction date. The prior driver record variables for these offenders are shown in Appendix Table B5, and since some of these driver record variables were significantly different between the two groups, they were used as covariates in the analyses to remove these differences.
Following the extraction of covariates, simple correlations were computed between demographic and prior driving variables and the outcome measures, number of days to first subsequent crash and number of days to first subsequent DUI incident. The demographic and 2- year prior driving variables that had statistically significant correlations with the outcome measures were identified and selected as potential variables. For each analysis, logistic regression was used to test for potential interactions between the covariates and treatment/ comparison groups. In analyses where there are significant interactions, the levels of the covariate and treatment groups are plotted on a graph to determine if there are differential effects of alcohol treatment on the covariate levels. The interaction term is then typically included in the final logistic regression analyses.
For the alcohol- reckless drivers, significant interactions were not found between the covariates and the alcohol program sanction on either crashes or DUI reoffenses.
55
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
Alcohol Education Program Evaluation for Drivers Convicted of Alcohol- Reckless Driving
Figure 10a and Table 16a display the results of the seventh evaluation of the effectiveness of the alcohol education program on drivers convicted of alcohol- related reckless driving violations.
4.955.073.353.0102468RATE OF CRASH‐  ORDUI‐ INCIDENT‐ INVOLVMENTPER 100 DRIVERSNo programAlcohol educationNo programAlcohol education CRASHESDUI INCIDENTSprogramprogram
Figure 10a. Adjusted 1- year crash and DUI incident rates for 2005- 2006 ( fiscal year) alcohol reckless drivers by type of sanction.
Total Crashes: Like the past two year’s findings, the results show that assignment to the alcohol education program does not have a significant effect on 1- year subsequent crash rates of alcohol- related reckless offenders. Comparing these rates to those of the 2005 first DUI offenders, it is evident that alcohol- related reckless drivers who are assigned and those not assigned to an alcohol program are slightly more involved in crashes ( 4.95 and 5.07 per 100 drivers, respectively, see Table 16a) than are first DUI offenders ( 4.8 per 100 drivers; see Table 13a). However, these crash rates of the 2005 alcohol- reckless drivers are the lowest of all of the previous evaluations of alcohol- reckless drivers. For previous evaluations going back from 2004 to 2002, 1- year crash rates of alcohol- related reckless drivers with no program were 5.13, 5.44, and 6.45, respectively, while the crash rates for those involved in the alcohol education program were 5.24, 5.82, and 5.56. These drivers who were arrested with a BAC level of 0.08% and above would have incurred an APS license suspension/ restriction prior to their conviction. Table 9a shows that about 88% of the alcohol- reckless drivers had BAC levels of 0.08% and above.
56
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 16a: THE EFFECT OF ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM ON SUBSEQUENT CRASHES AND DUI INCIDENTS FOR DRIVERS CONVICTED OF
ALCOHOL- RELATED RECKLESS DRIVING
YEAR
SANCTION GROUP
SAMPLE SIZE
NUMBER OF CRASH- INVOLVED, PER 100 DRIVERS
PERCENTAGE EFFECT ( DIFFERENCE IN FAILURE RATES)
GRP 1 - GRP 2 X 100
GRP 2
NUMBER OF DUI INCIDENT- INVOLVED, PER 100 DRIVERS
PERCENTAGE EFFECT ( DIFFERENCE IN FAILURE RATES)
GRP 1 - GRP 2 X 100
GRP 2
1) No program
( 2,474)
4.95
3.35
7/ 2005 - 6/ 2006
( FOLLOW- UP
PERIOD = 1 YEAR)
2) Alcohol- education
program
( 4,570)
5.07
- 2.4%
3.01
11.3%
DUI Incidents: Figure 10a and Table 16a indicate that program participants do not show significantly fewer DUI incidents in the one year following their assignment to the alcohol- education programs relative to the nonparticipants. The reoffense rate of the alcohol- reckless offenders not assigned to the programs is 11.3% higher than the reoffense rate of the program participants, but this difference is not large enough to be significant. These results have to be viewed with some caution because random assignment to program attendance was not possible; there still remains the possibility of uncontrolled biases through self- or judicial- selectivity, even though statistical control of group differences removed part of the biases based on available covariates.
Results of the Evaluation of the 3- Month and 6- Month Alcohol Education Programs for First DUI Offenders
Total Crashes: Figure 10b and Table 16b display the results of the sixth evaluation of the effectiveness of the alcohol education program on first DUI offenders assigned to 3- month versus 6- month programs. Differing from last year but like the previous four years, the results show that the length of time of the alcohol education program does not have an effect on the 1- year subsequent crash rates of first- time DUI offenders. The 3- month program participants have a 6.5% higher crash rate than that of the 6- month participants, but this difference is not significantly large enough to conclude that the 6- month program was more effective in reducing crashes than 3- month program.
57
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
4.574.293.795.4402468RATE OF CRASH‐  OR DUI‐ INCIDENT‐ INVOLVMENT PER 100 DRIVERS3‐ month program6‐ month program3‐ month program6‐ month programCRASHESDUI INCIDENTS
Figure 10b. Adjusted 1- year crash and DUI incident rates for first offender drivers ( arrested in year 2005) by length of alcohol education program.
TABLE 16b: FIRST OFFENDER 3- MONTH AND 6- MONTH ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM EFFECTS ON TOTAL CRASHES AND DUI INCIDENTS
YEAR
SANCTION GROUP
SAMPLE SIZE
NUMBER OF CRASH- INVOLVED, PER 100 DRIVERS
PERCENTAGE EFFECT ( DIFFERENCE IN FAILURE RATES)
GRP 1 - GRP 2 X 100
GRP 2
NUMBER OF DUI INCIDENT- INVOLVED, PER 100 DRIVERS
PERCENTAGE EFFECT ( DIFFERENCE IN FAILURE RATES)
GRP 1 - GRP 2 X 100
GRP 2
1) 3- month program
( 22,059)
4.57
3.79
2005
( FOLLOW- UP
PERIOD = 1 YEAR)
2) 6- month program
( 6,471)
4.29
6.5%
5.44
- 30.3%*
* p = < .0001
DUI Incidents: Similar to the last five year’s results, Figure 10b and Table 16b indicate that, among first DUI offenders, the 3- month program participants have significantly ( p = .0001) fewer DUI incidents in the one year following their assignment to the alcohol- education programs than do the 6- month program participants. This finding is consistent with the last five years’ evaluations of subsequent DUI incidents. The reoffense rate of the 3- month program participants is 30.3% lower than that of the 6- month participants. Again, this finding is not surprising given that those assigned to
58
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
the longer- term program have higher BAC levels ( 0.20% and above), and would be more likely to recidivate than those with lower BAC levels.
In order to determine whether BAC level was a major factor in the outcome of the previous analysis, two further subanalyses were conducted to investigate this possibility. Among first offenders assigned to the 6- month program, 30% actually had BAC levels below 0.20% and 70% had BAC levels 0.20% and above. This difference in BAC levels allowed for conducting additional analyses comparing the outcome measures between those with BAC levels below 0.20% and those with BAC levels 0.20% and above. A second subanalysis was conducted comparing 3- month versus 6- month alcohol treatment program effects for those with BAC levels of 0.20% and above. There were a sufficient number of drivers who had BAC levels of 0.20% and above who were assigned to the 3- month program to allow for this second comparison. The results of these additional subanalyses are described below.
Results of the Evaluation of the 6- Month Alcohol Education Programs for First DUI Offenders with BAC Levels Below 0.20% Versus 0.20% and Above
Total Crashes and DUI Incidents: Table 16c shows the results of the effects of the 6- month alcohol treatment program on crashes and DUI incidents for two groups: 1) those with BAC levels below 0.20% and 2) those with BAC levels of 0.20% and above. As evident in Table 16c, differences in crash rates between the two groups approached directional significance ( p = .055) but this finding should be viewed with caution because its tentative significance level could indicate that the difference in crash rates is due to chance alone; also the three previous similar evaluations did not show significant differences between the two groups on crashes. First offenders with the lower BAC levels had 23.4% fewer crashes than their counterparts with higher BAC levels. A possible explanation for this finding may be related to pre- existing crash expectancies related to differences in BAC levels.
59
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 16c: FIRST OFFENDER 6- MONTH ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM
EFFECTS ON TOTAL CRASHES AND DUI INCIDENTS FOR DRIVERS
WITH BAC LEVELS BELOW 0.20% VERSUS 0.20% AND ABOVE
YEAR
SANCTION GROUP
SAMPLE SIZE
NUMBER OF CRASH- INVOLVED, PER 100 DRIVERS
PERCENTAGE EFFECT ( DIFFERENCE IN FAILURE RATES)
GRP 1 - GRP 2 X 100
GRP 2
NUMBER OF DUI INCIDENT- INVOLVED, PER 100 DRIVERS
PERCENTAGE EFFECT ( DIFFERENCE IN FAILURE RATES)
GRP 1 - GRP 2 X 100
GRP 2
1) BAC below 0.20%
( 1,865)
3.37
4.04
2005
( FOLLOW- UP
PERIOD = 1 YEAR)
2) BAC 0.20% and above
( 4,367)
4.40
- 23.4%
5.81
30.5%*
* p = .004
However, significant differences were apparent between these two groups on DUI incidents, substantiating the fact that those with BAC levels of 0.20% and above had more DUI incidents in the one- year following their conviction than drivers with BAC levels below 0.20%. These drivers with lower BAC levels had 30.5% fewer DUI incidents than did those with BAC levels of 0.20% and above. The results of this analysis confirm the earlier suggestion that those with higher BAC levels are more likely to recidivate than those with lower BAC levels, regardless of the length of time of alcohol treatment program. Thus, it may not be that the 6- month programs are less effective than the 3- month programs, but rather that the 6- month programs have a higher proportion of offenders with high arrest BAC levels, who are more likely to recidivate.
Results of the Evaluation of the 3- Month and 6- Month Alcohol Education Programs for First DUI Offenders with BAC Levels of 0.20% and Above
Total Crashes and DUI Incidents: As shown in Table 16d, and consistent with the past two year’s results, the length of time of alcohol treatment program for first DUI offenders had no effect on those with BAC levels of 0.20% and above on both outcome measures, 1- year subsequent crashes and DUI incidents. Although the crash and DUI incident rates for those attending the 3- month program are slightly higher than for those attending the 6- month program, these differences were not significant, even with a difference of 17.6% on subsequent crashes. Thus, with BAC level held constant, the findings of this analysis indicate that the extended 6- month alcohol treatment program has no beneficial effect relative to the 3- month alcohol treatment program, on first offenders with high BAC levels on both subsequent 1- year crashes and DUI incidents. While the results of the previous analysis left unclear the relationship between
60
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
recidivism and length of program or BAC level, the findings from this analysis more clearly indicate that extending the program length for first offenders with high BAC levels does not reduce subsequent 1- year crashes or DUI incidents.
TABLE 16d: FIRST OFFENDER 3- MONTH AND 6- MONTH ALCOHOL EDUCATION
PROGRAM EFFECTS ON TOTAL CRASHES AND DUI INCIDENTS FOR
DRIVERS WITH BAC LEVELS 0.20% AND ABOVE
YEAR
SANCTION GROUP
( BAC LEVELS 0.20% AND ABOVE)
SAMPLE SIZE
NUMBER OF CRASH- INVOLVED, PER 100 DRIVERS
PERCENTAGE EFFECT ( DIFFERENCE IN FAILURE RATES)
GRP 1 - GRP 2 X 100
GRP 2
NUMBER OF DUI INCIDENT- INVOLVED, PER 100 DRIVERS
PERCENTAGE EFFECT ( DIFFERENCE IN FAILURE RATES)
GRP 1 - GRP 2 X 100
GRP 2
1) 3- month program
( 1,349)
5.01
5.74
2005
( FOLLOW- UP
PERIOD = 1 YEAR)
2) 6- month program
( 4,367)
4.26
17.6%
5.63
1.8%
The effectiveness of increasing the duration of time for alcohol education/ treatment programs has not been supported in the literature. DeYoung examined the effectiveness of lengthening SB 38 alcohol treatment programs from 12 to 18 months for second offenders and found no evidence that the additional 6 months contributed to reducing DUI recidivism ( DeYoung, 1995). A final limitation of these analyses should be noted. Since this study only included first offenders whose conviction abstract had information on the length of alcohol program, there may be additional unknown biases that this quasi- experimental design cannot rule out. However, some statistical control of group differences removed at least part of the biases based on available covariates.
61
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
SECTION 5: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Data on DMV administrative license disqualification actions ( license suspension or revocation [ S/ R]) taken in DUI cases are presented below. These statutorily mandated actions, which are taken in cases of alcohol- impaired driving, are initiated by the receipt of either a law enforcement APS report ( 0.08% BAC, zero tolerance, or chemical test refusal) or court abstract of conviction. It should be noted that multiple actions can result from a single DUI incident— for example, a single DUI arrest frequently will result in both an APS suspension and a ( later) mandatory postconviction suspension action.
The total count of postconviction suspension/ revocation actions has dramatically increased as a result of a law change ( SB 1697), effective September 20, 2005, which assigned to DMV sole responsibility for imposing postconviction license actions for all DUI offenders and removed this responsibility from the courts.
This section includes the following tables:
Table 17: Mandatory DUI License Disqualification Actions, 1996- 2006. This table shows preconviction ( APS) and postconviction license disqualification totals from 1996 through 2006. The postconviction totals include juvenile suspensions, first- offender suspensions, second- offender suspensions and revocations, and third- and fourth- offender revocations.
Table 18: Administrative Per Se Process Measures. This table presents APS process measure data for fiscal years 2004/ 2005 through 2006/ 2007.
The following statements are based on the data shown in the previously listed tables.
􀂾 The total number of DMV DUI preconviction and postconviction S/ R actions increased by 47.4% over that for 1996 ( see Table 17). These totals have inflated as of September 2005 due to the law change noted above.
62
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
􀂾 In 2006, 185,481 APS license actions were taken. Of these actions, 76% were first- offender actions ( including actions for zero tolerance) and 24% were repeat- offender actions ( see Table 17).
􀂾 In FY 2006/ 2007, total APS actions increased by 5.8% from FY 2005/ 2006, following a 6.7% increase in the previous fiscal year ( see Table 18).
􀂾 The number of chemical test refusal actions decreased by 3.0% in 2006, after increasing by 2.6% in 2005. The total number of refusal actions has fallen 18.5% in the past decade ( see Table 17).
􀂾 Requests for APS hearings have decreased from 28.2% of all APS actions in FY 2004/ 2005 to 24.8% in 2006/ 2007. The rate at which APS S/ R actions are upheld after hearing has increased during the past several fiscal years, from 86.7% upheld in 2004/ 2005, to 89.8% upheld in 2005/ 2006, and in 2006/ 2007 ( see Table 18).
􀂾 During the first 13.5 years after implementation ( on January 1, 1994) of the " zero tolerance" law for minors, 210,035 suspension actions have been taken.
63
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
TABLE 18. ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE PROCESS MEASURES
7/ 04- 6/ 05
7/ 05- 6/ 06
7/ 06- 6/ 07
Total APS actions taken ( including actions later set aside)
184,324
196,691
208,106
Total .081 APS actions set aside
16,761
16,763
17,721
Total .012 suspensions set aside
1,349
1,369
1,415
Net total APS actions taken ( excluding actions later set aside)
166,214
178,559
188,970
Net total .08 APS actions
147,196
157,602
166,544
Net total .01 suspensions
19,018
20,957
22,426
Net APS Actions by Offender Status/ License Classification: 3
Net total APS actions, noncommercial drivers
162,473
175,458
186,251
Net total commercial driver ( CDL) APS actions taken
3,741
3,101
2,719
Net total actions of commercial drivers in commercial vehicles
15
12
4
Net APS .08 actions for drivers with no prior DUI convictions or APS
actions4
109,174
113,707
121,138
4- month license suspensions
83,908
84,983
85,599
30- day suspensions plus 3- month restrictions
896
56
0
30- day suspensions plus 5- month COE5 restrictions
15,705
20,798
27,596
First- offender chemical test refusals
5,761
5,509
5,622
CDL first offender suspensions/ restrictions
2,904
2,361
2,321
Net APS .08 actions taken for drivers with prior DUI convictions
38,022
43,895
45,406
Suspensions
34,769
40,284
41,904
Revocations
3,253
3,611
3,502
APS Chemical Test Refusal Process Measures:
Total .08 and .01 APS refusal actions taken ( including actions later set aside)
10,015
10,140
10,151
Total .08 refusal actions set aside
614
505
568
Total .01 refusal actions set aside
24
28
31
Net total .08 and .01 APS refusal actions ( excluding actions later set aside)
9,377
9,607
9,552
Net total .08 refusal actions
9,018
9,222
9,159
Net total .01 refusal actions
359
385
382
Chemical test refusal rate ( excluding actions later set aside)
5.43%
5.16%
4.88%
Net .08 APS refusal ( suspension) actions for subjects with no prior DUIs
5,761
5,509
5,622
Net .08 APS refusal ( revocation) actions for subjects with prior DUIs
3,253
3,611
3,502
APS Hearings6
Total .08 and .01 inperson or telephone APS hearings scheduled
52,023
49,856
51,677
Percentage of total APS actions resulting in a scheduled hearing7
28.2%
25.3%
24.8%
.08 hearings held and/ or completed
47,139
45,098
47,093
.08 actions sustained/ upheld following hearings
40,847
40,511
42,281
Percentage of .08 APS actions sustained/ upheld following hearings
86.7%
89.8%
89.8%
.01 hearings held and/ or completed
4,556
4,532
4,766
.01 actions sustained/ upheld following hearings
3,830
4,010
4,194
Percentage of .01 APS actions sustained/ upheld following hearings
84.1%
88.5%
88.0%
APS Chemical Test Refusal Hearings
Total .08 and .01 APS refusal hearings scheduled
3,610
3,308
3,209
.08 APS refusal hearings held and/ or completed
3,488
3,196
3,075
.08 APS refusal actions sustained/ upheld following hearings
2,963
2,758
2,665
1.08 refers to APS actions taken subsequent to obtaining evidence of a BAC equal to or in excess of the .08% per se level or on the basis of a chemical test refusal. Such an action is taken in conjunction with a DUI arrest.
2.01 refers to APS suspensions taken against drivers under the age of 21 with BACs .01% or greater, or on the basis of a chemical test refusal, and are not necessarily taken in conjunction with a DUI arrest.
3All entries in this category exclude actions later set aside but, where possible, include actions taken on the basis of either a chemical test refusal or a BAC test result.
4Prior DUI convictions or APS actions consist of any such conviction or action where the violation occurred within ten years ( seven years before 1/ 1/ 05) prior to the current violation.
5This restriction allows driving to, from, and during the course- of- employment ( enacted 1/ 1/ 95).
6These figures include refusal hearings but exclude Driver Safety/ Investigation hearings, subsequent APS dismissal hearings and departmental reviews.
7Both numerator and denominator include those actions later set aside as a result of the hearing.
65
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
SECTION 6: CRASHES INVOLVING ALCOHOL
This section presents data on alcohol- involved crashes, as compiled and reported by the California Highway Patrol. Only crashes involving injury or fatality are assessed, due to incomplete reporting of property- damage- only ( PDO) crashes1. Drivers identified as being under the influence of drugs other than alcohol are also included in the " alcohol- involved crash" category, but typically comprise less than 1% of the total. This section includes the following tables and figures:
Table 19: DUI Arrests Associated with Reported Crashes, 1995- 2005. This table shows the number of DUI arrests and percentage of DUI arrests associated with reported crashes from 1995- 2005.
Table 20: 2005 Had Been Drinking ( HBD) Drivers Involved in Fatal/ Injury Crashes by Race/ Ethnicity and Sobriety Code. This table shows the law enforcement officer’s determination of sobriety and race/ ethnicity for 2005 HBD drivers involved in crashes.
Table 21: 2005 Had Been Drinking ( HBD) Drivers Involved in Fatal/ Injury Crashes by Adjudication Status and Sobriety Code. This table cross tabulates crash sobriety codes ( from law enforcement crash reports) with the court disposition for 2005 DUI convictions associated with those crashes.
Table 22: 2005 Had Been Drinking ( HBD) Drivers Involved in Fatal/ Injury Crashes With No Record of Conviction, by County and Sobriety Level. This table shows the number of HBD drivers involved in fatal/ injury crashes without a corresponding conviction, by sobriety level, by county.
Table 23: 2005 Had Been Drinking Drivers Under Age 21 Involved in Fatal/ Injury Crashes, 1995- 2005. This table shows the total number of HBD drivers under age 21 in California. It also shows their percentage of the total count of HBD drivers in the state, over the same time period.
1 Among 2005 DUI arrests, 28,504 were associated with a reported traffic crash, with 11,811 involving an injury or fatality, and 16,693 were PDO.
66
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
Tables 24a- 24b: 2005 Had Been Drinking Drivers Involved in Fatal/ Injury Crashes by Age and Sex ( Total and Not Arrested or Convicted). These two tables show the number of 2005 HBD drivers in fatal and injury crashes by age and sex, both total ( 24a) and for drivers who were not arrested or convicted in conjunction with the crash ( 24b).
Table 24c: 2005 Had Been Drinking Drivers Involved in Fatal/ Injury Crashes by Age and Type of Crash. New this year is a table that cross tabulates type of crash by age group for HBD drivers involved in fatal/ injury crashes.
Tables 25a- 25b: Sobriety Level by Prior DUI Convictions for 2005 Had Been Drinking ( HBD) Drivers Involved in Fatal/ Injury Crashes ( Total and Not Arrested or Convicted). These two tables show the number of 2005 HBD drivers involved in fatal and injury crashes by sobriety level and prior conviction status, both total ( 25a) and for drivers who were not arrested or convicted in conjunction with the crash ( 25b).
Tables 26a- 26b: 2005 Had Been Drinking Drivers Involved in Fatal/ Injury Crashes by Prior DUI Convictions ( Total and Not Arrested or Convicted). These two tables show the number of 2005 HBD drivers involved in fatal and injury crashes by number of prior convictions, both total ( 26a) and for drivers who were not arrested or convicted in conjunction with the crash ( 26b).
Table 27: 2005 Reported Blood Alcohol Concentration ( BAC) Levels of Drivers Involved in Alcohol- Related Crashes. This table shows the mean, the median and frequency distribution of BAC levels for HBD drivers involved in alcohol- related crashes in 2005.
Figure 11 ( below) shows the annual percentages of traffic injuries and fatalities that were alcohol- involved from 1996 to 2006. The numerical data for this graph are shown on the DUI summary statistics sheet at the beginning of this report.
67
2008 DUI- MIS REPORT
19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006YEAR01020304050PERCENTAGE OF TOTALINJURIES AND FATALITIES31.6303132.833.133.334.234 235.736.638.111.910.910.710.310.210.410.410.210.410.511.2FatalitiesInjuries
Figure 11. Percentage of total injuries and total fatalities that were alcohol- involved, 1996- 2006.
Figure 12 ( below) shows the alcohol and drug involved fatalities from 1996 to 2006. It also shows a breakdown of the number of fatalities when only alcohol was known to be involved, when only drugs were involved, or when both alcohol and drugs were involved in the fatality.
1124100994910391019106611461098110911851175242265347353389422134143159214267374437446491437214131911301231620500100015002000250 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006YEARTOTAL NUMBER OF FATALITIESDrugs onlyAlcohol &  drugsAlcohol only