Effects of administrative license revocation on employment

Abstract

PREFACEThis research project evaluated both the effects of administrative license revocation (ALR) on the employment of first and multiple DUI offenders and the effects of alcohol-involved crashes on the employment of the victims of these crashes.The authors would like to recognize the following organizations The authors would also like to thank Mr. Steven Schmidt, formerly of the PA DUI Association, for his assistance throughout the project and the following KETRON team members who assisted with site selection and recruiting, survey development, survey administration, and impact analysis: Mr. Lawrence Decina, Dr. Michael: Temple, Ms. Marta BlotnyKornak, and Mr. William Dreifke.Finally, a special thanks goes to Ms. Julee Shuck for the production of the task and final reports for this project. This project addressed: (1) the impact of administrative license revocation (ALR) on the employment of first and multiple drunk-driving (DUI) offenders, and (2) the impact of alcohol-related crashes on the employment of crash-involved persons (i.e., innocent drivers, passengers, and pedestrians). In-person DUI offender questionnaires were completed by 579 first offenders and 233 multiple offenders (812 total) at alcohol education schools and treatment programs in the following four counties, which represented varying levels of ALR: Chester County, PA (no ALR), Anne Arundel County, MD (immediate hardship license available), Marin County, CA (30-day hard license suspension), and New Castle County, DE (90-day hard license suspension). Completed crash victim surveys were returned by 146 crash victims from Pennsylvania, California, and Delaware.The data in this study show that administrative license revocation does not have a pronounced impact on the DUI offender's job and income. Alcohol-involved crashes have a great impact on seriously injured victims. However, the proportion of DUI crashes producing serious injury is quite low. Most DUI is crash-free, and most crashes do not involve injury. Thus, the vast bulk of the impact of DUI falls on the offenders, and not the victims.Policy recommendations based on the study findings are: (1) One should not expect loss of jobs and income from administrative license revocations as great as 90 days for first offenders. Since such revocation has safety benefits, continued support for the adoption of administrative license revocation in the 12 states that do not yet have ALR is recommended. (2) The data indicate no strong reason to prefer one form or duration of ALR over another, from the viewpoint of minimizing economic consequences. (3) Because the population perceives the risk of apprehension for unlicensed driving as very low, more should be done to increase the rate of detection, and such efforts should be widely publicized. (4) States should facilitate license reinstatement so that more drivers become relicensed at the end of their sanction period. (5) Since the public is still not familiar with administrative license revocation, more resources should be devoted to publicizing this r...

Recidivist drink drivers’ self-reported reasons for driving whilst unlicensed—A qualitative analysis

“…There have been some qualitative interview studies with unlicensed drivers (e.g. Clark & Bobevski, 2008;Ferrante, 2003;Knox et al, 2003;Mirrlees-Black, 1993;Ross & Gonzales, 1988;Silcock, Sunter, van Lottum, & Beuret, 1999), some quantitative mail questionnaire studies (Chang, Woo, & Tseng, 2006;Robinson & Kelso, 1981;Smith & Maisey, 1992;Williams et al, 1984), a quantitative interview study (Wells-Parker & Cosby, 1988) and classroom completed questionnaire study (Knoebel & Ross, 1997). It has been noted that much of the research on unlicensed driving is purely descriptive and fails to illuminate the personal, social and environmental factors underpinning the behaviour and consequently why, employment, family or social factors lead some to drive without a valid licence (Watson, 2003).…”

“…A number of previous studies found that only a small proportion of drivers who lose their licence due to driving under the influence of alcohol had resultant employment and income problems, primarily because many drivers continued to drive while suspended (e.g. Knoebel & Ross, 1997;Ross & Gonzales, 1988;Wells-Parker & Cosby, 1988). In another Western Australian study Ferrante (2003) found the greatest impact of licence disqualification was on employment and family responsibilities.…”

Driving behaviors and accident risk under lifetime license revocation

“…Finally, the privilege to drive is highly valued, and withdrawal of the privilege feared (DeYoung and Gebers, 2004). Even for a short-term S/R, one-fifth of the US states rejected the adoption of administrative S/R because it could lead to loss of employment, in turn impacting the offender's dependents and subsequent social welfare costs (Knoebel and Ross, 1997;Voas and DeYoung, 2002). In 2001, the transportation authority has been requested by the Taiwan Constitutional Court to seriously reconsider whether ALLR offenders should be allowed to re-enter the licensing system if they can demonstrate their ability and willingness to follow the regulations of the road and society.…”

Driving under the influence: Epidemiology, etiology, prevention, policy, and treatment.

“…In particular, offenders might be unable to commute to work as a result of license sanctions. However, evidence has suggested that 94% of offenders continue to work 1 month after their license suspensions ( Knoebel & Ross, 1997 ). It is important to note that some of these states polled do allow for limited licenses.…”