April 1, 2012

REPEAL OF DUI TREATMENT PROGRAMS
WAS DANGEROUS MOVE, CRITICS SAY

By Jon Lender, Hartford Courant

Sometimes the state legislature inadvertently takes a step backward as it pushes forward in an effort to deal with a social problem.

That's what some Connecticut lawmakers think happened last year when the administration of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy pushed landmark legislation through the General Assembly to overhaul the state's system of dealing with drunken drivers.

Here's the story in brief: For 16 years, if you had two or more drunken-driving offenses, then you couldn't get your license back until you completed a 15-month course of counseling and education that began with a 48-hour hotel stay with other multiple DUI offenders. Three major vendors ran those programs under contract with the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

But those programs — which claimed to be 93 percent successful, with a "recidivism" rate of only 7 percent, based on DMV statistics — ended on Jan. 1, the effective date of the new drunken-driving bill.

Last year's bill shifted the fight against drunken driving toward a new technology — the "ignition interlock device," an electronic breath analyzer connected to the ignition system of a car or truck that prevents a drunken driver from starting a vehicle. And, in the process, it repealed a long-standing law that required repeat drunken-driving offenders to complete the 15-month programs before they could get their licenses back.

As a result, there remain about 21,000 people who lost their drivers' licenses because of multiple DUI offenses but never completed the required courses — and because the courses are no longer required after this past Jan. 1, those drunken drivers can just pay a $175 "restoration fee" and regain their licenses, critics say.

It's a case of throwing out something good in the process of trying to make progress in new directions, two Democratic lawmakers said last week.

"The state cannot allow 21,000 chronic alcohol abusers, who were mandated to complete this program, to get a pardon," state Reps. Henry Genga of East Hartford and Jack Thompson of Manchester said last week in written testimony to the legislature's judiciary committee.

They testified in support of a new drunken-driving bill that would fine-tune some of the provisions of last year's legislation — and, in particular, reinstate the requirement that the multiple drunken-driving offenders go through the 15-month program before they can get their licenses back.

The section of the statutes that was repealed last year "must be reinstated" to restore the requirement that the repeat drunken-driving offenders go through the course before getting their licenses back, Thompson and Genga said.

"Without the Multiple Offender Drunken Driving Program, Connecticut has no program designed to address this group of chronic alcohol abusers," they said. The best way to deal with this group is via "thorough assessment, education, peer intervention, treatment and aftercare follow-up," they said.

The program doesn't cost the state anything, because the offenders have to pay the fee of $800 to $900 themselves, Genga and Thompson said.

Why would the Malloy administration and legislature repeal the requirement for drunken drivers to go through such a program?

Former judiciary committee co-chairman Michael Lawlor, now the head of criminal justice policy and planning in Malloy's budget office, said the move wasn't inadvertent, nor was it a step backward. He said it was just one of many elements to last year's legislation, which included an administrative shift of responsibility for drunken-drivers' alcoholism treatment from the DMV to the Judicial Branch's parole and probation officers.

The drunken-driver programs that the new legislation repealed were not the only alcoholism treatment that offenders were required to undergo, Lawlor said. Such offenders also were required by the criminal justice system to undergo treatment. The consensus last year was that for purposes of efficiency and avoiding duplication, it would be better if the DMV didn't handle the programs and probation personnel took it over, Lawlor said.

But supporters of the programs that were discontinued Jan. 1 said that the treatment ordered by probation officers might not be the same for all offenders, and might not be as effective or consistent.

Lawlor said Friday that neither he nor the Malloy administration is opposing the proposal to restore the programs that ended Jan. 1. He said that if the reinstatement brings some duplication with other treatment programs, which are already being ordered by probation personnel to individuals, there's no harm done.

"It certainly is not a bad idea to make these offenders do more stuff," Lawlor said. "If it can be done through probation, great. But if the legislature wants to reinstate these education programs … it can't hurt."

The three vendors for the 16-year-old program — the Commonwealth Group of Manchester, Bridgeport-based Connecticut Renaissance, and the Danbury–based Midwestern Connecticut Council of Alcoholism — have joined to hire a lobbyist for $12,000 to push for reinstatement of their programs, state records show.

Reinstating the programs is only part of what this year's drunken-driving bill would do.

It also would continue the shift in emphasis in last year's bill away from long suspensions of drunken-drivers' licenses toward shorter license suspensions in conjunction with lengthy requirements for drunken drivers to have their cars and trucks equipped with ignition interlock devices.

Last year's bill, for example, changed the penalty for a third drunken-driving offense from the old one — a year's license suspension, followed by two years of mandatory use of the ignition interlock device — to a 45-day suspension that's followed by three years' use of the ignition interlock device.

This year's bill pushes things further in that direction.

For example, the old system required that after a fourth offense, a drunken driver's license would be revoked for at least six years, after which he or she could apply for reinstatement but would have to use an ignition interlock device for 10 years. This year's bill would enable such a repeat offender to reapply for his or her license after two years. If approved, he or she would have to drive a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device for life.

The shift away from long license suspensions toward shorter ones — with longer ignition interlock device usage — is an acknowledgment of "two harsh realities," said Democratic Rep. Tom Reynolds of Ledyard.

"License suspensions and fines do not change the behaviors of repeat DUI offenders, and three out of four offenders with suspended licenses drive anyway," Reynolds told the judiciary committee last week in testimony supporting this year's drunken-driving bill. "This is why states are adopting the mandatory use of [ignition interlock devices] for repeat offenders as the most effective strategy for changing offenders' behaviors, while allowing offenders to drive to and from work."

That approach has the support of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which was heavily involved with the administration in developing last year's bill and is supporting this year's bill, too.