Presentation to the Senate Ways

1
Deferred Prosecution of DUI Cases in Washington
State Evaluating the Impact on
Recidivism December 11, 2007 Robert Barnoski,
Ph.D. Barney - recently retired from Institute
Washington State Institute for Public
PolicyPhone [phone] E-mail
barney_at_wsipp.wa.gov Institute Publications
www.wsipp.wa.gov
2
Washington State Institute for Public Policy

• Created in 1983 by the state Legislature
• Mission Carry out non-partisan research on
  projects assigned either by the legislature or
  the Institutes Board of Directors.
• 8 legislators
• 4 higher education provosts or presidents
• 4 state agency directors

3
Trend in Washington State DUI Cases Filed
50,000
16
45,000
14
40,000
12
35,000
10
30,000
Number of Cases Filed
25,000
8
Cases Filed Per 1,000 Licensed Drivers
20,000
Cases Filed
6
Cass Filed per 1,000 licensed drivers
15,000
4
10,000
2
5,000
-
0
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
4
Trend in DUI Case Outcomes
50
Pled or Found Guilty
40
Amended
30
Percentage of Case Outcomes
Deferred Prosecution
20
Dismissed/Not Guilty
10
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
5
Todays Presentation

• The impact on recidivism of
• Deferred Prosecution,
• Prosecutor Diversion, and
• 1998 Statute Changes.

6
Research Design

• Estimating the impact on recidivism requires
  having a comparison group similar to the
  treatment group except for the treatment.
• Created comparison groups of similar cases.
• Used demographics and criminal traffic
  convictions to statistically adjust for
  systematic differences between groups.
• Not random assignment,
• so, results could be influenced by unknowns.
• However, still a strong design and have
  confidence in the findings.

7
Deferred Prosecution Comparison Group DUI
Guilty Cases Filed During 2000 and 2001

• Selected guilty cases - where the defendants
  pled guilty or were convicted of a DUI,
• had no prior DUI Deferred Prosecutions, and
• had Substance Assessment/Treatment report on file
  at DOL with alcohol/drug dependency.

8
Deferred Prosecution Comparison Group DUI
Guilty Cases Filed During 2000 and 2001

• Total DUI guilty cases 29,018
• Cases without prior deferred 25,525 100
• SAT 7,513 29.4
• Insufficient Evidence 3,872 15.2
• Alcohol/Drug Abuse 1,298 5.1
• Alcohol/Drug Dependency 2,343 9.2

9
Deferred Prosecution vs. Comparison Group
Adjusted 3-Year Recidivism Rates DUI Cases filed
in 2000 and 2001
16.5 percentage point, and 32 percent reduction
Pled Guilty or Convicted
52.0
Deferred Prosecution
7.1 percentage point, but 24 percent reduction
35.5
29.7
22.6
DUI Recidivism
Overall Recidivism
Statistically significant at the .001
probability level.
WSIPP, 2007
10
DUI Prosecutor Diversion CasesDUI cases filed
in 2000 and 2001 with this alternative.

• Comparison Cases
• Selected guilty cases - where the defendants
  pled guilty or were convicted of a DUI, and
• matched to prosecutor diversion defendants by
  age, gender, ethnicity and prior misdemeanor
  driving convictions
• DUIs, negligent driving, criminal traffic, and
• alcohol misdemeanors.

11
Prosecutor Diversion vs. Comparison Group of
Guilty Cases Adjusted 3-Year Recidivism
Rates 2000 and 2001 DUI Cases
Pled Guilty or Convicted
50.5
Prosecutor Diversion
42.8
28.8
27.5
DUI Recidivism
Overall Recidivism
Statistically significant at the .001
probability level.
12
Impact of 1998 Changes to DUI Deferred
Prosecution Statute

• Compare recidivism rates for DUI cases granted a
  deferred prosecution before 1999 to those with a
  deferred prosecution after 1998.

13
Adjusted 5-Year Recidivism Rates for Deferred
Prosecution Cases Before and After 1998 Statute
Filed Pre-1999
Filed Post-1998
47.2
43.1
31.8
28.5
DUI Recidivism
Overall Recidivism
14
Possible Policy Options

• To increase the courts knowledge of the results
  from Substance Assessment/Treatment Reports,
• the completed reports could be sent by court
  case number to the sentencing court for
  disposition and recording in the court database.
• To ensure greater access to assessment and
  treatment,
• elimination of potential financial barriers
  might be considered.
• To encourage more defendants to seek treatment
  under a deferred prosecution,
• shorten the period of supervision.

15
Possible Policy Options

• To possibly improve treatment outcomes,
• evaluate the impact on recidivism of various
  types of treatment for various types of offenders
  - particularly evidence-based programs.
• To reduce DUI recidivism,
• continue evaluating additional approaches.

16
The End