OJJDP Model Programs Guide

= PREVENTION=20
- Academic=20 Skills Enhancement
- Afters= chool/Recreation
- Alternative=20 School
- Classr= oom=20 Curricula
- Cognitive=20 Behavioral Treatment
- Communit= y=20 and Problem-Oriented Policing
- Commun= ity=20 Awareness/Mobilization
- Drug,=20 Alcohol Therapy/Education
- Family = Therapy
- Gang=20 Prevention
- Leadership=20 and Youth Development
- Mentoring
- Parent= =20 Training
- School/Cl= assroom=20 Environment
- Truancy=20 Prevention
- Vocational= /Job=20 Training
- Wrapar= ound/Case=20 Management

IMMEDIATE=20 SANCTIONS=20
- Aftersc= hool/Recreation
- Cognitive=20 Behavioral Treatment
- Conflict=20 Resolution/Interpersonal Skills
- Drug,=20 Alcohol Therapy/Education
- Family=20 Therapy
- Parent = Training
- Teen/Youth=20 Court
- Restorative=20 Justice
- Wraparo= und/Case=20 Management

INTERMEDIATE=20 SANCTIONS=20
- Aftersc= hool/Recreation
- Cognitive=20 Behavioral Treatment
- Day=20 Treatment
- Drug=20 Court
- Drug,=20 Alcohol Therapy/Education
- Family=20 Therapy
- Gun=20 Court
- Home=20 Confinement
- Probation=20 Services
- Restor= ative=20 Justice
- Wraparo= und/Case=20 Management

RESIDENTIAL=20
- Cognitive=20 Behavioral Treatment
- Correctional= =20 Facilities
- Day=20 Treatment
- Group=20 Home
- Resi= dential=20 Treatment Centers
- Wilderness=20 Camps

REENTR= Y=20
- Aftercare
- Cognitiv= e=20 Behavioral Treatment
- Day=20 Treatment
- Reentry=20 Court
- Vocatio= nal/Job=20 Training

MPG = HOME SEARCH = HOME=20 SEARCH=20 ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE SEARCH=20 USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS PROGRAM=20 TYPES RATING=20 SYSTEM REFERENCES=20 NOMINATE=20 PROGRAMS RELATED = LINKS=20 ORDER=20 CD ROM

CORE REQUIREMENTS = BEST=20 PRACTICE DATABASES

DMC-Reduction=20 Best Practices Database =

NEW! DSO Best = Practices=20 Database

Saving=20 Lives

Cli= ck=20 Here to Print=20

<= /TBODY>

Intervention:

In 1987 the = Massachusetts=20 Governor=E2=80=99s Highway Safety Bureau = and the=20 Commonwealth Fund of New York launched = the=20 Saving Lives program and offered funding = for=20 Massachusetts communities to undertake=20 comprehensive, multistrategy programs to = reduce=20 alcohol-impaired driving and related = problems=20 such as speeding, other moving = violations, and=20 failure to wear safety belts. More than = 50=20 communities applied for funding; 11 = communities=20 qualified; 6 were selected.

These = six=20 Massachusetts communities varied in = population=20 size and geographic location. They were = selected=20 to be as similar as possible to the = remaining=20 five (unfunded) communities. Each = program=20 community organized a task force made up = of=20 concerned private citizens, = organizations, and=20 officials representing various city = departments.=20 Each community received approximately $1 = per=20 inhabitant annually in program funds. = Half of=20 these funds involved payment for a = program=20 coordinator, 20 percent was designated = for added=20 police enforcement, and the balance went = toward=20 program activities and educational = material.=20 Voluntary effort was also a key factor = in=20 implementing Saving Lives.

The=20 communities=E2=80=94not State or Federal = agencies=E2=80=94developed most of the = program=20 initiatives. To reduce drunk driving and = speeding, communities introduced media=20 campaigns, business information = programs,=20 speeding and drunk-driving awareness = days,=20 speed-watch telephone hotlines, police = training,=20 high school peer-led education, Students = Against=20 Drunk Driving chapters, college = prevention=20 programs, alcohol-free prom nights, beer = keg=20 registration, and increased surveillance = of=20 liquor outlets. To increase pedestrian = safety=20 and seatbelt use, program communities=20 implemented media campaigns and police=20 checkpoints, posted crosswalk signs = warning=20 motorists of fines for failure to yield = to=20 pedestrians, added crosswalk guards, and = offered=20 preschool education programs and = training for=20 hospital and prenatal clinic = staff.=20

Evaluation=20 Methodology:

A quasi-experimental = evaluation compared Saving Lives cities = with the=20 rest of Massachusetts. Program cities = were also=20 compared with the other five cities that = prepared high-quality proposals but were = not=20 funded. The evaluation involved fatal = injury and=20 crash monitoring, which used data from = the U.S.=20 Department of Transportation to examine = fatal=20 crashes for the 5 years preceding the = program=20 and the 5 years following the start of = the=20 program. It made use of direct = observation of=20 seatbelt use through annual surveys = conducted in=20 both program and comparison areas. It = used=20 telephone surveys through four = independent,=20 anonymous, cross-sectional, random-digit = dialing=20 surveys in program cities and the rest = of the=20 State, which assessed program awareness, = beliefs=20 about police enforcement, and frequency = of=20 driving and drinking. And it used = monitoring of=20 traffic citations as reported by the=20 Massachusetts Merit Rating Board. =

Evaluation = Outcome:

In Saving Lives = cities, fatal=20 crashes declined from a total of 178 = during the=20 5 preprogram years to 120 during the 5 = program=20 years. This implies that the program = cities=20 experienced a 25 percent fatal crash = reduction=20 during the program years. During the = same=20 period, fatal crashes that involved = alcohol in=20 program cities dropped from 69 to 36, a = 48=20 percent decline. The number of fatally = injured=20 drivers with high blood=E2=80=93alcohol = levels showed a=20 decline of 51 percent in program cities, = from 49=20 to 24. Furthermore, the number of fatal = crashes=20 involving drivers 15 to 25 years of age = declined=20 from 98 to 45, a 54 percent drop. The = number of=20 fatal crashes that involved speeding = drivers=20 dropped from 68 to 33 in program cities, = and the=20 number of pedestrian fatalities declined = from 45=20 to 33. The declines were, respectively, = 27=20 percent and 18 percent greater than = elsewhere in=20 Massachusetts, but not statistically=20 significant.

During the 5 program = years,=20 relative to the previous 4 years, the = rate of=20 visible injuries declined from 21.1 to = 16.6 per=20 100 crashes, a 5 percent greater decline = than=20 throughout the rest of Massachusetts. = Pedestrian=20 injuries per 100 crashes dropped from = 2.0 to=20 1.5. Total injuries per 100 crashes = declined=20 from 48.2 to 47.3.

Safety belt = use=20 increased in program cities, from 22 = percent in=20 1989 to 29 percent in subsequent years, = a rate=20 17 percent proportionately greater than = that of=20 the rest of the State. In contrast, the=20 proportion of vehicles observed = traveling at 10=20 or more miles over the speed limit = declined from=20 19 percent in program cities in 1989 to = 9=20 percent in subsequent years, a 43 = percent=20 greater decline than in comparison = areas. The=20 proportion of 16- to 19-year-olds who = reported=20 driving after drinking in the month = prior to the=20 interview declined from 19 percent in = 1988 to 9=20 percent in 1993 in program = cities.

During=20 the 5 program years relative to the = previous 5=20 years, the program cities experienced a = 33=20 percent decline in fatal crashes, from = 178 to=20 120. In comparison cities, the number of = such=20 crashes increased from 120 to 121. The = decline=20 in alcohol-related fatal crashes was 42 = percent=20 greater in Saving Lives cities than in=20 comparison cities. These trends were = similar to=20 those observed when Saving Lives cities = were=20 compared with cities in the rest of the=20 State.

References:

Hingson, Ralph, = Timothy=20 Heeren, Michael Winter, and Ronald = Zakocs. 1996.=20 =E2=80=9CReducing Alcohol-Impaired = Driving in=20 Massachusetts: The Saving Lives = Program.=E2=80=9D=20 American Journal of Public Health = 86(6):791=E2=80=9397.

Program Specification:=20

Rating:

Promising=

Program = Type:

Commu= nity=20 and Problem-Oriented = Policing

Commu= nity=20 Awareness /=20 = Mobilization

Ethnicity:

Gender:

Both

Age:

<= /TR>

5=20 - 35

Special Populations: =

Target=20 Settings:

Ru= ral

Su= burban

Ur= ban

Problem = Behaviors:

Alcohol,Tobacco=20 and Other Drug=20 = Use

Risk & Protective = Factors:=20

Risk=20

Community=20

Availability=20 of alcohol and other=20 = drugs

Community=20 crime / High crime=20 = neighborhood

Peer=20

Peer=20 alcohol, tobacco, and/or other drug=20 = use

<= /TD>

Individual=20

Favorable=20 attitudes toward drug use/Early onset of = AOD=20 use/Alcohol and/or drug=20 = use

<= /TD>

Protective=20

Community=20

Safe=20 environment / Low neighborhood=20 = crime

Rewards=20 for prosocial community=20 = involvement

Individual=20

Healthy=20 / Conventional beliefs and clear=20 = standards

<= /DIV>

Additional=20 Information:

Additional Best Practice = Registries in=20 Which This Program is Listed=20

Status:

Program is in = operation=20 at this time.

Performance = Measures:

Suggested OJJDP = Performance=20 Measures for the Program = Types(s):

Contact=20 Information:

Program=20 Developer:

Ralph=20 Hingson, Sc.D.
Director, = Division of Epidemiology and Prevention=20
5635=20 Fishers Lane, Room 2077
Bethesda,=20 MD = 20892=E2=80= =931705=20
Phone: 301443127= 4
Fax:=20 301443704= 3
Email:=20 Click=20 Here
Website: Click = Here=20 =

Cli= ck=20 Here to Print=20 =