In 1989 the experimental introduction of Alcohol Traffic Education Programs (ATEP) started on a national basis. The program serves as an alternative sanction for offenders of the alcohol-traffic regulations. Each ATEP consists of a two day course for 10 to 20 adjudicated `drunken drivers'. The programs are intended for certain categories of alcohol-traffic offenders stipulated by the guidelines for the prosecution: namely no serious personal damage to third parties involved, a blood-alcohol-level (BAL) of at least 1.31 pro mille. Recidivists of less serious alcohol-traffic offenses, or those who have refused the blood-alcohol-test may also apply for the program. From a judicial perspective the ATEP has been organised in two different forms, the `prosecution model' and the `court model'. Participants are `rewarded' either by a reduction of the prosecutors' demand in court, or by avoidance of the execution of the suspended part of the penal sentence. The rewards for participation in the course have been specified by the guidelines for the prosecution. The program aims at increasing relevant knowledge regarding the risks of alcohol in high-speed traffic. The legal consequences are discussed as well as the influence of alcohol on the capability to drive a car. Apart from increasing knowledge, the program also aims at influencing attitudes towards the combination of drinking and driving. The ATEP tries to convince its participants that other than even a modest alcohol consumption before driving should be considered irresponsible behaviour. It tries to raise the participants' consciousness of his pattern of alcohol consumption, of high-risk social situations and of alternatives to driving (or drinking) in such high-risk cases. After the first year of its national introduction the ATEP has been evaluated. Research data have been obtained at three points in time: just before the onset of the program, at the end of the program and one year after the end of the program. On this last occasion, the follow-up measurement, only data on attitudes and behaviour were obtained. Information on the participants' drinking and driving behaviour was based on both self-report and on the judicial registration of alcohol-traffic-offenses during the preceding year. The sample of ATEP participants consisted of 2660 respondents. Judicial registration was documented for a control group of 1176 alcohol-traffic-offenders, who did not take part in the program. To control for selection effects the control group included cases dating from both before and after the institution of the course. Affecting relevant knowledge and attitudes may be considered as intermediary aims of the ATEP. Although the program does not aim at a lower level of alcohol consumption or a more limited use of cars for transportation, such effects can logically be considered as desirable in view of the ultimate goal of this alternative sanction. The results of this evaluation study confirm previous conclusions that the program significantly affects both knowledge and attitudes of the participants. Follow-up results show that (as far as measured) the positive effects of the program are retained during the one year time period. However, no positive effects could be demonstrated on actual behaviour as measured with the judicial registration figures. Following the program the participants did not commit less (or more) alcohol-traffic-offenses than those who did not participate in the program. (Author/publisher)
Abstract