| Project title: | Evaluation of an Innovative Community Based Drink Driving Rehabilitation Program |
|---|
| Project type: | Developmental Crime Prevention |
|---|
| Researchers/contact: | Dr Mary Sheehan and Dr Victor Siskind, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, The University of Queensland; Mr Doug Woodbury, Research and Evaluation Unit, Queensland Department of Transport and Mr Robert Bleakley, Community Corrections, Queensland Corrective Services Commission. |
|---|
| Commencement date: | 1990 |
|---|
| Location: | Queensland ; Australia. |
|---|
| Funding body/institution: | Criminology Research Council Grant ; Federal Office of Road Safety, |
|---|
| Description of the study: | The Queensland Corrective Services Commission Drink Driving Rehabilitation Program is the only one currently available in Queensland. Initiated in 1989, this program is a 'user pays' system involving educational segments, provided by community stakeholders. It takes six and a half months to complete and aims to improve offenders' knowledge and attitudes, and to offer an alternative to extended prison sentences for multiple offenders. The aim of the project was to evaluate the program and establish whether it was a viable rehabilitative approach. |
|---|
| Description of the outcomes: | The evaluation concluded that the program was indeed practical and feasible. In the three years since it was proposed 15 centres were established involving at least 450 participants. The achievement and acceptance level involved here should not be underestimated. Each course includes participants from seven government and non-government organisations and has achieved high acceptance from magistrates. It is conducted primarily with multiple offenders who have other serious social disadvantages. A sizeable proportion of participants are over 30 years of age, poorly educated, socially disadvantaged and have already had previous prison sentences for drink driving and other offences.However, in spite of the programs high level of acceptance it lacks a locally designated coordinator and is not based on a knowledge-attitudinal-behaviour change model. There is no collaborative training, coordination or support given to the persons delivering it. The program also needs much closer supervision of participants and clearer guidelines as to alternative strategies to deal with the small number of participants who attend the program after heavy drinking. If these problems are not rectified it may be difficult to maintain at its present level of implementation. |
|---|
| Evaluation: | See description of outcomes which are based on a systematic evaluation of process. |
|---|
