There is substantial evidence that an important factor in impaired driving deterrence is the perceived probability of apprehension. Raising the perceived probability of apprehension is an important element of an effective impaired driving enforcement program. Checkpoint operations are highly visible and are often used for anti-DWI enforcement efforts. However, checkpoints can be resource intensive and so it is often difficult to generate as much use of that tactic as is desired. There are alternative enforcement methods and tactics to increase the scope of traditional checkpoints. A lower cost, low-staffing checkpoint method to augment traditional checkpoints is flexible checkpoints, sometimes referred to as “phantom,” “mobile awareness,” “public awareness,” or “mock” checkpoints. This checkpoint strategy involves staging, but not fully staffing the checkpoint. Instead, the appearance of setting up a checkpoint is created with, for example, a small number of officers setting out signs, parking one or more patrol vehicles with flashing lights and a “BATmobile” (mobile breath testing facility) or other DWI enforcement vehicle on the side of the road. The “checkpoint” can then be moved to other locations during the evening. No drivers are stopped and no arrests are made, unless some provocation occurs by drivers passing by the flexible checkpoint. However, a main objective of a checkpoint– awareness–is accomplished by the number of drivers observing and potentially telling others about the law enforcement activity. Flexible checkpoints, however, should not be used in isolation. Instead, they should be used to supplement other DWI enforcement activity employed in the jurisdiction, either concurrently or within a short period of time of those other activities. This is intended to enhance the visibility, and, theoretically, increase the deterrent effect of the jurisdiction’s overall enforcement operations by heightening awareness of enforcement activities. The motoring public should not become aware of the “phantom” nature of some of the enforcement efforts. However, little is known about the actual use of flexible checkpoints nationwide, or their effectiveness in reaching these objectives. Thus, additional research and evaluation may be warranted. Objectives The main objectives for this project were: * Determine the extent that flexible checkpoints are being used in the United States. * Identify four agencies that use flexible checkpoints, document problems or concerns that have arisen in those agencies, and determine and document any solutions developed that could be used by other interested agencies that may want to implement flexible checkpoints. * Conduct a study to determine the effectiveness of flexible checkpoints in one site. The extent of flexible checkpoint use was studied by networking through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Offices and State Highway Safety Offices; six States were identified where flexible checkpoints were being conducted. Telephone discussions were held with law enforcement supervisors to gain an understanding of how flexible checkpoints were employed in those jurisdictions, if any problems were encountered and, if so, any solutions that were developed to minimize or eliminate the problems. A field test of the effectiveness of flexible checkpoints was conducted by the Illinois State Police (ISP) in Madison County with Winnebago County serving as a comparison site. Checkpoint activities, termed Roadside Safety Checks (RSCs) in Illinois, were conducted monthly at both sites during 2009, with flexible checkpoints augmenting the RSCs in Madison County. ISP headquarters and field staff were supportive of the flexible checkpoint concept, thought this concept was practical and easy to implement, thought it would enhance the potential general deterrence effects of standard RSCs, and said they planned to use flexible checkpoints in the future. The use of flexible checkpoints is gaining acceptance with law enforcement agencies. The agencies we contacted had not encountered any adverse publicity and believe that flexible checkpoints are useful and economical. They believe flexible checkpoints expand the general deterrence reach of their other anti-DWI efforts. The evaluation of the use of flexible checkpoints to augment traditional roadside safety checks in Illinois did not show a significant reduction in the odds of a SVN crash in the test community. The results of a public survey conducted at driver licensing agencies in Illinois did not produce an increase in public awareness of checkpoint activity, although more survey respondents in the test community reported driving after drinking less often at the end of 2009 than in 2008 before the monthly RSCs and flexible checkpoints were implemented. However, this finding was not statistically significant. Flexible checkpoints are a versatile, low-cost tool that virtually any size law enforcement agency can adapt to enhance enforcement and increase public awareness of enforcement efforts. We found both during our review of flexible checkpoint activity across the country and in the context of the evaluation of flexible RSCs in Illinois, that the implementation of flexible checkpoints is readily accomplished, economical, and supported by law enforcement in general. However, while no adverse effects resulting from the implementation of flexible checkpoints have been identified, positive effects that can be attributed to flexible checkpoints have not been definitively proven. One challenge to enhancing general deterrence through flexible checkpoints is that they essentially must affect public awareness through direct contact with the motoring public and less so through other public information mechanisms that are traditionally used to increase awareness of enforcement activities. For example, one would not specifically advertise that flexible checkpoints were being used, but rather publicize the active enforcement that was underway and hope that encountering flexible checkpoints enhanced the deterrent value of the traditional enforcement that they were supporting. This may not have the multiplicative effect one expects from the use of traditional mass media. We recommend that law enforcement agencies implement flexible checkpoints as a potential means of enhancing the effectiveness of other DWI countermeasure enforcement efforts at minimal cost. A larger scale, multisite study of this concept could more definitively address the issue of the effectiveness of (as yet not demonstrably effective) strategy. Different applications of flexible checkpoints could be considered both operationally and in the context of an evaluation. These include: * Possibly employing multiple flexible checkpoints in conjunction with a single traditional enforcement effort (e.g., traditional checkpoint, saturation, or roving patrol). * Encouraging law enforcement agencies to take the adaptability of flexible checkpoints into account and vary their use to meet the needs of their communities, sometimes employing multiple variations (enforcement enhancement and solely public awareness) as needed. * Employing flexible checkpoints in the early evening, for example, from 6 to 9 p.m. (when more drivers are on the road), in combination with a standard checkpoint, saturation, or roving patrol in the later hours (when impaired driving fatalities are more likely to occur) maximizes the visibility and productivity of the law enforcement activity and the likelihood of encountering and detecting impaired drivers. It should be recognized that the many potential variations for employing flexible checkpoints may make it difficult to test for the specific effectiveness of a single implementation strategy. Any future studies need to carefully document the flexible checkpoint methods implemented and work closely with the associated law enforcement agencies to capture the nuances of that implementation. (Author/publisher)
Abstract