Recursos del Grupo Cortefiel

For this study, information was obtained on offenders who did not participate. This information was collated on a pro forma sheet and subsequently entered into a PASW 18 (2009) database for basic analysis of response rate. A total of 198 participants agreed to participate in this study from a total of 426 eligible offenders approached, representing an overall response rate for participation of 46.5%. Due to the nature of the recruitment and as it was beyond the requirements of this research, it was difficult to determine detailed

information about those who did not participate and, as such, interviewers noted the number

of people and their reason for non-participation. Approximate age and whether accompanied was also noted by the interviewer without questioning the offender any further. The following information was ascertained at the time of court mention for each offender approached:

 Gender

 Approximate age

 Whether accompanied by lawyer or other

 Reason for non-participation

Table 6.1 (below) shows the differences in these variables for those who agreed and those who declined to participate in the research interviews after the hearing for the offence.

Table 6.1. Characteristics of all first offenders who agreed and refused to participate

Offender Characteristics Agreed to participate Refused to participate Significance level

Gender

*As age groups are an ordered variable, the Linear by linear association was used

The following information was obtained on differences between those who

participated in the study and those who declined. Firstly, there were no significant differences between those who participated and those who declined in terms of gender. As it can be seen,

there was a significant difference between age groups between those who participated and those who did not, in that those who agreed to participate were likely to be younger. Upon conducting a chi-square test, the linear-by-linear result showed that as age group increased, the percentage of those who participated was smaller in the sample. With approximate age, interviewers were asked to note this on a proforma sheet prior to the interview taking place, which accounts for the slight difference between this data and the self-reported data presented in this chapter about actual age, which was noted on a separate interview form. Although the data shows that the interviewers tended to accurately predict the age of the offenders, the fact that this initial age is an estimation must be taken into account when interpreting this result.

Offenders who had a lawyer or other person present were more likely to decline participation. Specific data was not collected about the accompanying person of those who declined to participate (as it was asked in the interview), so the exact number of offenders declining who had a lawyer was not ascertained. As lawyers are generally utilised in more serious criminal matters, this may have biased the results, and it is possible that the more serious first offenders, such as those engaging in other criminal behaviours or those with very high range BACs, were less likely to take part. Of those who participated in the interview, 5.6% (n=11) had a lawyer present for their hearing, so therefore it is unknown whether this is representative of the overall first offender drink driving group. However, most first time offenders are not advised to seek legal representation in uncomplicated matters (i.e. pleading guilty to a low or mid-range offence) as it is costly and unlikely to change the outcome of the hearing, so while the majority were not accompanied by a legal representative, exact numbers are not known.

Offenders who were accompanied typically did not want to remain in the court for a longer period of time than necessary with somebody waiting. While this may present a potential bias, it was difficult to avoid and therefore results must be taken in context. The

reason for non-participation was noted and scored qualitatively. It became clear that the main cited reason for non-participation was being rushed (n=99). This was due to the time it could take for the court mention to be heard. While all offenders with cases being heard were required to be at court at 9am on the day, it could sometimes take until 1pm or occasionally even later for an individual case to be heard. Many offenders reported that they were not advised that the court mention would take as long as it did, and they had other places to be, with many stating that they had to return to work. The length of the interview at around 45 minutes on average deterred some from taking part for the same reason. While consideration was given to recruitment at the court and interviewing later at another venue, the small reimbursement offered for taking part was not deemed to be enough to cover further travel and time by participants.

6.3.2 Main dependent variables

There are two specific dependent variables that will be used in the following two chapters relating to Study 2 analyses. The first is the number of self-reported drink driving occasions in the 6 months prior to offence. The second question related to having behavioural expectation, or perceived likelihood of drink driving in the 6 months following the offence.

These variables are examined separately to determine their relationships with the key Study 2 variables, and are also presented in the following chapter as a combined measure of risk to determine if such a measure predicts repeat drink driving. In Chapter 8 which reports on Studies 3 and 4, self-reported follow-up information is presented, so it can be determined if the same factors identified in this study actually lead to self-reported incidences of drink driving in the 6 months post offence. Further, it will report on analyses of baseline offenders’

official transport records to determine if any factors are associated with repeated conviction.

This will allow for a detailed exploration of the factors that lead to avoidance of recidivism in

the sample. The following sections detail the dependent variables used in the analyses presented in this chapter: past drink driving and behavioural expectation.

6.3.2.1 Past drink driving

One fifth of the sample (n = 39, 19.7%) indicated that they had not been drink driving¹⁰ in the last 6 months. While the largest proportion of the sample indicated that they did engage in drink driving prior to being caught, only a small number indicated that they had done it on many occasions (refer to Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1. Frequency of drink driving occasions in the 6 months prior to offence (N=198)

10 Questionnaire item was gender specific, asking in the last 6 months how many times did you have: (Males) >2 drinks in the hour before driving, and (Females) >1 drink in the hour before driving.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Frequency

Number of times drink driving in the 6 months prior to offence

As there were a number of outliers in the data, it was decided to categorise into groups for further analysis. A small number of participants reported that they had been drink driving over 25 times in the 6 months prior to the offence, for example. The following was decided based on the distribution of the raw data above. It was also important to separate those who reported no drink driving in the 6 months prior to the offence from all other groups.

Figure 6.2. Categorical distribution of previous episodes of drink driving (N=198).

The decision was made to categorise this variable into those who reported not drink driving at all, those who reported drink driving 1-5 times - the equivalent of less than monthly (n = 108, 54.5%), and those who reported drink driving 6 or more times in the 6 months prior to the first offence (n = 51, 25.8%). This variable, as categorised, will be used for further analysis unless specified otherwise.

20%

54%

26%

None 1-5 times 6 or more times

6.3.2.2 Behavioural expectation

The second main dependent variable measures behavioural expectation, or the perceived likelihood of drink driving¹¹ in the 6 months post offence. The following graph demonstrates the responses of participants for the scale, measured from 1-7, the higher scores demonstrating higher perceived likelihood of drink driving in the future. As expected, the majority of offenders at the time of court mention reported that they were unlikely to drink and drive in the future (76.1%).

Figure 6.3. Frequency of likelihood of drink driving (behavioural expectation) in the 6 months following the offence (N=198)

Due to the highly positively skewed frequencies for this item, for the following analyses in this study it was dichotomised, with those who report having no behavioural expectation (likelihood) of drink driving again at all being separated from other responses,

11 Questionnaire item was gender specific, asking ‘how likely do you think that it is that you will you will drive in the next 6 months’: (Males) after having >2 drinks in the hour before driving, and (Females) after having >1 drink in the hour before driving.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00

Frequency

Response to behavioural expectation item

which is indicated as having any level of behavioural expectation. The following figure demonstrates the newly dichotomised variable which was used for all further analyses. The labels ‘likely’ and ‘unlikely’ are used throughout the analyses, with ‘likely’ referring to any level of perceived likelihood of drink driving in the future (even when likelihood was low, it was not considered to be absolutely unlikely).

Figure 6.4. Dichotomous distribution of likelihood of drink driving (N=198)

This result reflects that the majority of first time offenders perceive at the time of the offence that they will be deterred from committing another drink driving offence, at least at the time of the court appearance. This will be further investigated in Chapter 8 which will specifically discuss if low behavioural expectation predicts future drink driving avoidance for offenders reinterviewed after a period of 6 months.

When these dependent variables are discussed throughout this chapter in relation to the independent variables, they will be collectively referred to as ‘past drink driving’ and

‘behavioural expectation’. The following sections will detail the characteristics of

participants, and then report on the relationships with the dependent variables. Please note

24%

76%

Likely Unlikely

that all tables relating to the bivariate associations discussed within this chapter can be found in Appendix D.