Whither the drunk driving movement?

Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 11, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

WHITHER

pp. 237-244,

1988 Copyright

THE DRUNK DRIVING

The Social and Programmatic

STEVEN

Orientations

A.

BLOCH

Integrated

0

0149-7189/88 $3.00 + .OO 1988 Pergamon Press plc

MOVEMENT?

of Mothers Against Drunk Driving

and STEVEN UNGERLEIDER Research

Services

ABSTRACT Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has frequently been characterized as a retributive organization that focuses its attention and energies on punishing the drinking driver. This image is examined in a survey of the leaders of 212 of MADD’s 360 chapters nationwide. Analysis reveals that support does not exist for the contention that MADD is fundamentally retributive in nature. The victimization status of chapter founders or members does not determine the kinds of programs or orientations of local chapters. Support is also lacking for the proposition that MADD focuses its energies primarily on punishing the drinking driver. Evidence indicates that MADD’s programmatic efforts are more focused on prevention than criminal justice or legislative activities. It is found, however, that while prevention is stressed on a programmatic level, punishment is considered the best solution to the drinking driving problem on the legislative level. The implications of these conflicting findings for MADD’s future direction are discussed.

INTRODUCTION bined operating budget for the organization in 1986 approached eight million dollars (Schaet, 1986). MADD’s legislative and political successes were also impressive. By 1982 they mobilized the Federal government into instituting a Presidential Commission to study drinking and driving. And by the mid-1980s MADD had served as a catalyst for the enactment of hundreds of bills by state legislatures across the United States, including the minimum age 21 drinking law adopted by 49 states (National Commission Against Drunk Driving, 1985; Westgate, 1987). Despite MADD’s successes, the group has been subjected to much criticism. A major critique maintains that MADD is fundamentally a retributive organization, one that “disguises its retributive motive with the language of deterrence” (Ross, cited in Wenger, 1983); one bound on a most basic level only by a “free floating anger” (Ely, 1984). Other literature concerning MADD has also been critical. Ritchey and Daniels’ (1983) and Daniels and

Grass roots organizations have played a significant role in the struggle against drinking and driving in the 1980s. Among the most active groups in the movement are AAIM (Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists), BACCHUS (Boost Alcohol Consciousness Concerning the Health of University Students), MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), RID (Remove Intoxicated Drivers), and SADD (Students Against Driving Drunk). Among these, the most prominent by far has been MADD, a group founded by Candy Lightner in 1980 after one of her daughters was killed by a drunk driver. By providing dramatic appeals to the mass media about the plight of the drinking driving victim, MADD’s agenda generated enormous publicity and national interest. As a result of the national media attention, MADD’s growth was explosive. Beginning with only a few northern California households in 1980, the group mushroomed into a nationwide organization by 1986 claiming some 400 chartered chapters in all 50 states. The com-

This work was made possible by grants from the Vanguard Public Foundation, The Buttinger Group and I.B.M. Corporation. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Normandie Nunez, Norma Walker, and Vicki Weber. Requests for reprints should be sent to Steven Ungerleider, PhD, Integrated Research Services, 65 Club Road, Eugene, OR 97401.

237

238

STEVEN A. BLOCH and STEVEN UNGERLEIDER

Ritchey’s (1983) analyses stressed the social conservatism underlying the anti-drinking driving movement in general, and MADD in particular. Ritchey and Daniels’ findings indicated, for example, that 39% of the variation in the number of local MADD chapters could be explained by the politico-religious conservatism of the region in vvhich the chapters were located. And this conservatism strongly supported MADD’s “single issue thrust”: that of implementing measures punitive to the problem drinker. Reinarman (1985) also examined MADD from a social movement perspective and reached conclusions similar to those of Ritchey and Daniels. Reinarman indicated that MADD was effective not just because of its charismatic leadership and passion for organizing, but because of the “structural conduciveness” of current social and political arenas to a restrictive movcment against drunk drivers. Most importantly, Reinarman argued, the political culture of the New Right intersects with the politics of MADD to villainize “killer drunks” and seek retribution against them. The image of MADD portrayed by the above researchers, as primarily a retributive organization operating in conjunction with the larger conservative movement, may be questioned on at least two fronts. First, while it is clear that many of MADD’s members and their families have been victimized by drinking drivers, research has not been forthcoming indicating that victimized individuals are more favorably disposed toward retributive and punishment-oriented sanctions than other nonpunitive solutions. Second, although MADD receives a great deal of press concerning its emphasis on victims rights, information is sketchy about the relative importance local chapters place on this issue compared to other MADD programs. The difference between the media image of

MADD and the operation of local chapters becomes important if one realizes that outlying chapters do not implement programs just because the central office in Texas approves of them. Indeed, local chapters operate in a fairly autonomous manner with respect to MADD Central and have the flexibility to adopt programs of their own choosing (Ungerleider & Rloch, 1987). Therefore, while MADD’s headquarters is quite clear about the need for local chapters to push for toughet sanctions for drinking drivers, local programs can operate on a far broader and multi-faceted level. In fact, programs currently being employed by chapters around the country demonstrate a fairly broad range of approaches. These include: mass media drinking and driving awareness projects, K-12 alcohol education and curriculum efforts, Project Graduation programs, task force implementation work, safe rides program dcvelopment, operation of victim assistance centers and establishment of public speaker bureaus. The contrasting images of MADD that have been delineated are subjected to scrutiny in this paper. More specifically, three aspects of these images are examined. First, the retribution hypothesis is evaluated by investigating whether MADD chapters emphasize differing programs depending on the victimization status of their founders or members. Second, the issue of MADD’s singular focus on punishment of the driving-under-theinfluence (DUI) offender will be addressed. To accomplish this, an examination is made of the kinds of programs (educational, preventive, and criminal justice) which local MADD chapters currently emphasize-or would emphasize if provided with greater resources. Finally, an assessment is made of the kinds of programs local MADD chapters believe are most effective in solving the drinking and driving problem.

METHODOLOGY Sample An eight page 23-question survey instrument was sent to the presidents of all MADD chapters nationwide in January 1986. Although surveys were addressed to the president of each chapter, instructions suggested that the person knowing the most about the organization should complete the form. Twenty-four of the 360 chapters listed on MADD’s master roster of chapters could not be located and were presumed defunct. Of the 336 chapters in operation, 212 returned completed questionnaires, yielding a response rate of 63.1%. An examination of response rates by region of the country indicates that the current sample is quite representative of MADD chapters nationally. Sixty-three percent of chapters responded to the survey overall. Compared to this, 59% of programs in North Central states, 57% in South Central, 57oio in South Atlantic,

58% in Pacific and 66% in mid-Atlantic states returned usable questionnaires and were included in the study. Only Northeastern and Mountain state chapters, with 70% and 40% response rates respectively, were not proportionately represented. Measures Measures employed in this study may be grouped into four categories: victimization status of chapter founders and members, types of MADD activities, amount of chapter “resources” and kinds of deterrence approaches. Each of these is discussed in turn. Victimization status refers to whether members, their families or friends have been injured or killed in an alcohol-involved crash. In each local chapter, respondents were asked whether their founder (who frequently remained as leader) was victimized by a drinking driver

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and what proportion of current members have been victims. Nine primary types of programmatic activities were isolated by research staff after extensive meetings with MADD leaders (Ungerleider & Conner, 1984). The nine activities were: effecting legislative change, providing victim assistance, promoting sobriety checkpoints, implementing court monitoring programs, providing information and education to the general public, furnishing professional referrals for DUI victims, maintaining a speaker’s bureau, working in the schools and providing telephone call-in hot Iines (to report drinking drivers). Respondents were asked to describe the level of emphasis their chapter placed on these activities and the level of involvement their chapter expects to take in the future. For purposes of this analysis, the nine programmatic activities above were divided into four basic types: criminal justice approaches, prevention and education programs, treatment efforts and “other.” Three measures were included in the “other” category because they did not fit well into the other three classifications: use of victim assistance programs, referral of victims to outside professionaIs and legislative lobbying. Legislative lobbying was not included as a criminal justice

239

activity because it was frequently concerned with a greater range of DUI-related issues (prevention, treatment, research) than simply promoting punishment of drinking drivers. In order to determine whether chapters emphasized certain programs over others because of a lack of resources, it became necessary to operationalize the term “resources.” Four types of measures were employed. The first three included number of chapter members, number of reliable unpaid regular workers and number of paid staff. The fourth indicator employed was community population. It was reasoned that chapters located in larger communities might develop certain types of programs more easily and cost effectively. The last of the four types of measures concerned the kinds of deterrence approaches chapter leaders believed were potentially most effectiv>e in solving the drinking driving problem. A Likert-type rating scale ranging from 1 (very ineffective) to 7 (very effective) was provided for each of 17 different possible “solutions.” Each of these possibilities was classified into one of four major categories (as above): criminal justice approaches, prevention and education programs, treatment efforts and “other.”

RESULTS Retribution Hypothesis The first issue to be addressed considers whether MADD may properly be thought of primarily as a retributive organization. The reality of this image is examined in Tables 1 to 3, where victimization status of the chapter founders and members is correlated with indicators of chapter program emphasis, future chapter priorities and opinion of DUI deterrent measure effectiveness. The importance of this analysis is that it demonstrates whether chapters comprised of leaders or members who have been victimized support policy approaches which differ systematically from chapters where victimization is less prevalent. As Table 1 demonstrates, greater victimization of founders and members does not significantly alter the kinds of programs manifested by local MRDD chapters. No major differences in program emphasis, particularly with respect to criminal justice programs, are evident in chapters where founders or members have been more heavily victimized. The single substantial difference that exists between more and less heavily victimized memberships concerns victim assistance programs; the greater the number of victims in a chapter, the more likely it is to focus its energies on victim assistance (r = .25, p < ,001). Table 2 indicates, similarly, that the victimization status of neither the chapter founder nor its members does much to predict the group’s future priorities. The

most significant finding in this table is that chapters with higher proportions of victims are more likely to plan increased activity in both court monitoring (a criminal justice activity) and work in schools (a preven-

TABLE 1 RELATIONSHJP~ BETWEEN VICTIMIZATION OF CHAPTER FOUNDERS AND MEMBERS AND NINE MEASURES OF CHAPTER ACTIVITY EMPHASIS

Activity Emphasis Variablesb a. Legislative changes (0) b. Victim assistance (0) C. Sobriety road checkpoints

(CJ) d. Court monitoring (CJ) e. Information dissemination: education (P) f. Referrals to professronals (0) 9. Establish speakers bureau (P) h. Work in schools (P) I Hot line (CJ)

Victimization Status of Chapter Founder

Percent of Members Who are Victims

-.13* -.I0

-.Oi

.lO -.08

03 -.07

-08

.25***

-.06

-.06 -.05 - 04 -.06

-.02 -.Ol .15*

“Computed as Pearson correlations. “Categorized as follows: Criminal Justice (CJ), Prevention (P), Treatment (T) and Other (0).

lp < .05. “‘p

< .OOl.

STEVEN A. BLOCH and STEVEN UNGERLEIDER

240 TABLE 2 RELATIONSHIPa

BETWEEN

FOUNDERS

AND MEMBERS OF FUTURE

TABLE 3

VICTIMIZATION AND ELEVEN

CHAPTER

Status

a

Chapter

Legislative

b. Victim

Prioritiesb

changes

assistance

c. Sobriety

Chapter

MEASURES

Percent Members

02

monrtoring

education

(CJ)

.Ol

.Ol

to professionals

g

(0) Establish

speakers

Mandatory

b.

Televrsionipublic

-

(P) C. Strong

07 .16’

Hot line (CJ)

j

Fund rarsing

k

Publicity

.Ol

-.02

(P)

(0)

.16*

-.08

-.06

-.05

-.Ol

-.07

(0)

-.04

%ategorized ment

lp <

as Pearson

drunk

drivers

Strict

enforcement

drunk

as follows:

(T) and Other

Criminal Justice

driving

student

(P), Treat-

than

(0).

05.

m

laws (CJ)

.03

-.12’

-.Ol 04

.05 .05

parent/ 05

.05 (CJ)

04

03

work/lobbying efforts

(0) (0)

-

04

-.Ol

-

07

-

01

the BAC to less

.l0 (CJ)

11

-.08

services

for vrctim

vrctimi witness

programs) -.I2

checkpoints

Concerned to police dnvers

citizen

-.16*

(CJ) phone

of suspect

in .Ol 00

legal dnnking

-.I0 as Pearson as follows.

(T) and Other

07 .05

age to

21 (P) “Computed

-

and involve-

(P)

%ategorized

.02 -.03

drunk

(CJ)

Peer education Raising

05

07

-.02

(P)

(P)

n. Sobriety

ment

-

of alcohol

assrstance

ment

.02

of

(CJ)

tion measure). The Pearson correlation for both measures is .16 (p < .05). Table 3 investigates the relationship between the victimization status of chapter members and leaders and their belief in the effectiveness of various deterrence measures. The findings of this table are similar to those presented above. That is, more victimized chapter founders or members are no more likely to prefer criminal justice solutions to the drinking driving problem than are less victimized founders or members. Indeed, the only two significant correlations exhibited in the table suggest that: chapters where founding members were victims are less likely to believe in sobriety checkpoints (a criminal justice measure) as effective (r = -.16, p < .05) and chapters with greater proportions of victimized members are fess likely to believe in strict enforcement of drinking driving laws as effective (r = -.12, p < .05). The victim retribution hypothesis has also been explored in an additional manner using data from this study. Theorizing that founding members who had been victims would be most interested in recruiting members like themselves, victimization status of chapter founders was correlated with the percentage of victims represented in the membership. Again, findings do not support the retribution thesis; indeed, while the correlation (r = -. 17, p < .Ol) is significant, it is in the opposite direction from that expected.

02

of current

monitoring

Information (e.g

05

for

(T)

Lowering

of Who

are Victims

02

(CJ)

Limrtrng availability

Victtm (CJ), Prevention

(CJ)

Rehabilitation/treatment

Court

correlations.

Founder

Percent Members

-.04 legal penalties

Legislative %omputed

of

awareness

(P) 9. Safe rides program h. Contracts between

.12*

Chapter

jail sentences

alcoholrcs f

-.14’

i

.08

bureau

EFFECTIVENESS

Status

Variablesb

a.

e. .02

in schools

Effectiveness

d -.06

(P)

Referrals

OF CHAPTER

Victimization Deterrence

-.06

dissemination/

f.

OF DUI DETERRENCE

of Who

road checkpornts

e. Information

VICTIMIZATION

FOUNDERSANDMEMBERSANDSEVENTEEN

are Victims

-.04

d. Court

BETWEEN

MEASURES

.oo -

(CJ)

(P) h. Work

of

Founder

(0) (0)

RELATIONSHIP”

PRIORITIES

Victimization Future

OF CHAPTER

.I0

correlations. Criminal Justice

(CJ), Prevention

(P), Treat-

(0).

‘p < .05

Chapter Activity Emphases The second topic to be discussed concerns whether MADD maintains a single issue focus on punishing the drinking driver. Data on this issue are presented in Table 4. An examination of the emphasis placed on program activities in MADD chapters nationally reveals that the major orientation of local MADD groups lies not so much on devising criminal justice-related programs or promoting legislative changes, but on implementing drinking and driving prevention projects. As Table 4 indicates, each of MADD’s three major prevention-oriented programs (disseminating information, establishing speakers bureaus and working with schools) receives far more emphasis than does its criminal justice-based projects (court monitoring, hot lines

Mothers Against Drunk Driving

CHAPTER ACTIVITY EMPHASES

241

TABLE 4 FOR NINE MADD PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Level of Emphasis (in percent)

Type of Activitya

N

None 1

1. information~education (P) Victim assistance (0) 3. Speakers bureau (P) 4. Work with schools (P) 5. Court monitoring (CJ) 6. Legislative change (0) 7. Hot line (CJ) 6. Referral to professionals (0) 9. Sobriety checkpotnts (CJ)

210 207 205 207 208 206 198 201 199

1 .o 4.8 8.3 3.9 4.8 5.8 58.6 39.8 55.8

2.

%ategorized

2

la.8 13.2 16.9 19.2 20.4 10.6 32.3 20.1

1.9

4

Great Deal 5

11.4 16.9 21.0 22.7 25.0 29.1 10.6 15.9 14.1

26.2 19.8 23.9 24.6 24.0 i a.4 6.1 8.0 5.5

59.5 39.6 33.7 31.9 26.9 26.2 14.1 46 4,5

Total Categories 485

85.7 59.4 57.6 56.5 50.9 44.6 20.2 12.0 10.0

as follows: Criminal Justice (CJ), Prevention (P) and Other (0).

and sobriety checkpoints) or legislative undertakings. Of the nine basic MADD programs listed in Table 4, drinking and driving prevention projects receive the first, third, and fourth most emphasis, while legislative activity ranked sixth and criminal justice-based programs were rated fifth, seventh, and ninth. Specifically, most (86%) chapters place at least moderately great emphasis on information dissemination and education, while 58% and 57%, respectively, emphasize speakers bureaus and working with schools. In contrast, 45% place substantial emphasis on making legislative changes, 5 1Vo on court monitoring, 20% on hot fines, and 10% on instituting sobriety checkpoints. A related issue worth exploring is whether MADD chapters would alter their program emphases if provided with greater resources. The effects of four types

EFFECTS= OF FOUR MEASURES OF ORGANIZATIONAL

Activity Emphasis Variables? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Moderate 3

Legislative changes (0) Victim assistance (0) Sobriety road checkpoints (CJ) Court monitoring (CJ) Information dissemination/education Referrals to professionals (0) Established speakers bureau (P) Work in schools (Pf Hot line (CJ)

(P)

“Computed as Pearson correlations. %ategorized as follows: Criminal Justice (CJ), Prevention *p < .05. “p < .Ol. ***p < ,001.

of reef u:~es are provided in Table 5. Surprisingly, these four appear to have only a limited bearing on the kinds of programs MADD groups support. Programs with larger memberships do tend to differ somewhat from their smaller counterparts with respect to their level of involvement with victim assistance programs (r = .16, p < -05) and work in schools (r = .15, p < .Ol). However, emphasis is substantially the same in chapters of all sizes with regard to the six other programs examined. Similarly, increasing the number of dependable unpaid workers or paid staff has little effect on chapter program emphases. Only victim assistance programs (r = ‘16, p < .05) and work in schools (r = .16, p < .05) are more common in chapters with larger numbers of unpaid workers, while victim assistance programs (r = .23, p < .OOl), information dis-

TABLE 5 RESOURCES ON NINE MEASURES OF CHAPTER ACTIVITY EMPHASIS

Number of Members

Number of (unpaid) Workers

.05 .16’ .05 .Ol .OQ -.Ol .09 .15* .05

.OQ .16* .06 .03 .08 .02 .iO .16* .07

(P), Treatment (T) and Other (0).

Number of Paid Staff .09

.23*” .ll .08 .13* ,.OQ .13’ .11 .03

l

Community Population

STEVEN

242

A. BLOCH

and STEVEN

semination (r = .13, ~7 < .05) and speakers bureaus (r = .I3, p < .05) are more widespread in MADD groups with greater numbers of paid staff. Like program size, community population has only a modest effect on the emphases of local chapters. As indicated in Table 5, only victim assistance programs (r = .22, p < .OOl),establishing speakers bureaus (r = .19, _P< .Ol) and work with schools (r = .17, p < .OI) are more likely to be stressed in programs based in larger cities than in smaller. The major finding of this analysis is that the effect of increased chapter resources is greatest on those programs which were already most commonly emphasized by MADD. Sgecif~cally, those four with the greatest overall emphasis (victim assistance, work in schools, establishing speakers bureaus. and disseminating information) are also those which have tended to increase most in importance when chapters had larger memberships, paid and unpaid staff or were ritua ..i in larger communities. These data suggest that even if local MADD chapters were supplied with greater resources, the kinds of programs they would emphasize would not be expected to change very much. MADD chapters would continue to stress prevention-oriented programs rather than criminal justice-based ones. Apparently, the current orienta-

UNGERLEIDER

tion of MADD stems from its decision to emphasize prevention/education programs and not from a lack of resources to undertake other kinds of projects. Effectiveness of Deterrents to Drinking and Driving The first issue concerns the kinds of programs MADD chapters believe are most effective. To examine this issue, respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of 17 ~OunterIlleas~ires in solving the drinking and driving probicm. As demonstrated in Table 6, these measures may be divided into three subcategories based upon their perceived level of effectiveness. The first group of measures consists of items that were deemed at Least moderately effective (Categories 6 and 7) by more than 70% of chapters; those in the second category were judged effective by 50-70%; and those in the third were believed effective by less than one-half of focal chapters. Among the first group of countermeasures, strong legal penalties for drinking drivers and strict enforcement of current DUI laws were rated most effective9Ooio of chapters stating that these items represented moderate to very effective deterrents. Following closely behind these two measures was the use of television and public awareness programs, rated effective by 85Yo; peer education and involvement, 84”io; mandatory jail

TABLE 6 EFFECTIVENESS

OF COUNTERMEASURES

TO DRINKING Percent

of Chapters

AND DRIVING lndicatlng

IneffectIve Very Deterrence

Effectiveness

Measure”

N

7. Very effective (>70”0) a. Stnct enforcement (CJ) b. Strong

legal penalties

c. Televisiompublic

awareness

d. Peer education e. Mandatory

lall sentence lobbying

Legislative

h. Court

RAC below

c

wetness watch

Not particularly a. Rehabilrtdtion

(CJ) (CJ)

(50-7096) (0) 10%

services

(CJ) (CJ)

(CJ) effective (~50%) of afcoholrcs (T)

b. Safe rrdes (P) c

Lrmit alcohol

d

Parent,student

Categortzed

availability contract

as follows:

(P) (P)

cnmrnal justrce

(CJ),

2

Slrght -

Slight -

Mod 6

3

4

5

Very -

Total Categories

7

687

211

.9

5

1.9

24

4.7

13.3

76.3

89.6

210

.5

5

.5

19

7.1

21.9

67 6

89 5

211

.5

.9

24

10.9

20.9

64.5

.5

1.9

12 9

17.1

67

0.0

85.4

210

0.0

5

206

2.4

5

2.4

39

IO 2

26.2

54.4

208

0.0

5

2.4

82

13.5

28.4

47

0.0

1.4

106

13 9

22-l

51.4

73 5

I 0

14

190

31.4

41.4

72.8

58.7

208

(CJ)

b. Lower d Citizen 3

monitoring

(P)

(0)

checkpoints

Moderately effective a Vtctrm assistance Vi&m

(P)

and Involvement

f.

g. Sobriety 2

(CJ)

I

Mod ~

Effective

.5

1

84.2 80 6

1

75 5

210

00

206

2.4

3.4

3.4

15 5

16.5

184

40.3

209

77

3.8

43

15.8

12.4

153

40.7

56 0

206

2.9

I.9

1.9

16.0

20.9

16.0

38.3

54 3

209

57

19

24

13.4

26.3

13 9

36.4

50.3

210

4.8

71

8.6

17.6

15.7

176

28 6

46.2

208

3.4

38

5.3

24.0

18.8

16.3

28 4

44 7

207

13 5

10.6

77

30.4

11 .6

10.1

15.9

26.0

209

86

91

5.7

30.1

22.0

12.9

11.5

24.4

prevention

(P)# treatment

(T) and other

5.7

(0).

Mothers Against Drunk Driving sentences, 8 1%; raising the legal minimum drinking age to 21, 78%; legislative lobbying, 76%; sobriety checkpoints, 74%; and court monitoring, 73%. The second tier of countermeasures contains items regarded as at least moderately effective by 50-70% of chapters. Two of the four measures in this category relate to programs designed to aid victims: 59% and 54% of chapters, respectively, rated victim assistance efforts and victim witness services as at least moderately effective. The two other categories within this grouping were concerned with lowering the BAC to less than .lO% and using citizen reporting to police of suspected drunk drivers. Moderate or high ratings were received on these measures by 56% and 50% of chapters, respectively. The four countermeasures believed to be least effective by local chapters are found in the third grouping in Table 6. It is noteworthy that all of these may be categorized as either prevention or treatment-oriented in nature, as opposed to criminal justice-based. In descending order of effectiveness, the four measures are: SUMMARY

AND

This paper has examined the prevailing image of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Specifically, three aspects of their image were evaluated. The first concerned whether MADD may be thought of primarily as a retributive organization. The findings of this study provided no support for this contention. Apparently, while some (or even many) individuals joined MADD as a result of the anger and grief they felt over the death or injury to a loved one, this emotion was channeled into a broader range of programmatic activities including victim assistance and prevention work. One important reason the redirecting of member energies may have been effective is that victimized individuals are no more likely than non-victimized ones to believe that criminal justice solutions to the drinking driving problem are more effective than non-criminal justice based ones. The second issue discussed in this paper is whether MADD maintains a single issue focus on punishing the drunk driver. The conclusion reached here belies MADD’s much publicized image as an organization primarily involved in promoting legislative change in the criminal justice arena. It was shown that, of MADD’s four most emphasized programs, three (disseminating information, establishing speakers bureaus and working with schools) were primarily informational or preventive in nature. Solutions reflecting more legislative or criminal justice orientations such as court monitoring or legislative change received somewhat less emphasis. It was further shown that chapters with greater resources did not tend to emphasize criminal justice

243

providing rehabilitation to alcoholics, offering safe rides programs to teens, limiting the availability of alcohol to the public and instituting contracts between parents and students. None of these measures is rated at least moderately effective by more than 46% of chapters, while the least effective of the four-instituting contracts between parents and students-received the support of just 24% of respondents. Significantly, when countermeasures are broken down by type, those with a criminal justice orientation are considered far more effective in dealing with the DUI problem than those concerned with prevention. Five of nine of those items falling into the first tier of countermeasures are concerned with the justice system, while all four of those in the last deal with reducing drinking and driving through prevention or treatment intervention. On average, 72% of chapters considered criminal justice-related countermeasures to be at least moderately effective. By contrast, prevention and rehabilitation/treatment oriented services were rated as highly by only 52% and 45% of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS activities to a greater degree than those with fewer resources. Indeed, the major effect of increased chapter membership, community size and paid and unpaid work forces was greatest on those programs which were already most commonly emphasized (victim assistance, work in schools, establishing speakers bureaus and disseminating information). Thus, it was concluded that the choice of programmatic orientation by local MADD chapters was not being constrained by a lack of resources. Local chapters would continue to emphasize prevention and victim-oriented services regardless of their level of resources. The third issue addressed concerned the types of countermeasures chapter leaders believed were most effective in solving the drinking driving problem. The conclusion reached on this issue is significant in that it appears inconsistent with the second finding aboveand to some degree with the first. The final conclusion is that, among potential deterrents to drinking and driving, MADD leaders tended to believe that criminal justice programs are more effective in solving the DUI problem than those geared toward prevention. It is unclear why the disparity exists between MADD’s belief in the deterrent capacity of the criminal justice system and its programmatic support for prevention. However, two possibilities are worth exploring. It may be that MADD’s ideological orientation has shifted recently from prevention to criminal justice, leaving its programmatic emphasis unchanged. Support for this possibility is suggested by a report on MADD conducted about a year before the current one (Weed,

STEVEN A. BLOCH and STEVEN UNGERLEIDER

244

1985). That study indicated that MADD leaders believed public awareness, not the criminal justice system, provided the most powerful solution to the drinking and driving problem. If MADD has indeed recently shifted ideological orientations, it seems likely that its programmatic orientation will also shift toward criminal justice. Alternately, it may be that MADD’s ideological orientation has not changed substantially in recent years. The disparity between MADD’s ideological and programmatic orientations would be explained by the group’s purposeful decision to emphasize prevention over criminal justice programs. MADD leaders may sense that, despite their belief in punishment, prevention and education should be stressed programmatically because these efforts are more popular with their members, the press or their financial backers.’ The direction in which MADD moves in the future will attest to which of the above possibilities is correct. The conflict between MADD’s ideological support for punishnlent and programmatic support for prevention is interesting with regard to the negative findings obtained about the “retribution hypothesis.” A question

which naturally arises is: If MADD is not promoting punishment for retributive purposes, then what accounts for its heavy belief in punishment-despite evidence that such efforts are of limited utility?2 The answer would seem to be that MADD was successful as a movement because it embodies the conservative orientation toward punishment that gained prominence in the 1980s (see Daniels & Ritchey, 1983; Gusfield, 1985; Reinarman, 1985; Ritchey & DanieIs, 1983). Promoted most forcefully by the ideological right, punishment increasingly replaced rehabilitation as the desired countermeasure for dealing with criminal offenders. Present data would suggest that MADD members may have shared pro-punishment viewpoints before they were victimized and that becoming a victim did not cause them to shift ideologically from a prorehabilitation/prevention position toward a more punitive one. In light of findings of this study, the roots of MADD as a movement should be sought in the ascendancy of Conservatism in this country in the 1980s; it should not be attributed to the rise of a retributive group of embittered drinking driving victims.

REFERENCES BLOCH, S. (1983). One year later: a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of California’s new drinking and driving laws. Abstrucfs

RITCHEY, F.J., & DANIELS, L.L. (1983). Regionat variations in support of the anti-drunk driver movement. Paper presented at the

and Neviews in Alcohol and Driving, 4, 9-20.

annual

DANIELS,

F.J. (1983). Evaluating the likelihood Drivers. Paper presented at the of the Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta, GA.

L.L., & RITCHEY,

ojsuccess ojMofhers Against annual

meeting

Drunk

meeting

(1984, December).

The new temperance.

NATIONAL COMMISSION AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING. (1986). Progress report on the recommendations proposed by the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. C. (1985). Social movemenis and sociaf problems: *‘Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, ” restrictive alcohol laws and social confrol in the 1980’s. Paper presented at the annual Convention of REINARMAN,

for the Study of Social Problems,

Society,

Atlanta,

D. (1986, February).

GA. MA:

MADD Newsletter. 4.

Adweek, 40-41.

GUSFIELD, J.R. (1985). Alcohol problems-an interaction& view. In von Wartburg, J.P., Magnenat, P., Miller, R., & Wyss, S. (Eds.), Currents in alcohol research and the prevention of alcoholproblems (pp. 71-81). Berne, Switzerland: Hans Huber.

the Society

Sociological

ROSS, H.L. (1984). Deterring the drinking driver. Lexington, Lexington Books. SCHAET,

ELY, ES.

of the Southern

Washington,

DC.

‘Several individuals have commented that a third possibility also exists. The argument presented is that MADD chapters may want to emphasize activities that promote punishment for drinkjng drivers but feel constrained in the programmatic application of these beliefs. This possibility is plausible, but only with regard to the low chapter emphasis on sobriety checkpoints-MADD chapters of course may not implement these themselves. The argument would do less to explain why relatively little stress is placed on hot lines, court monitoring or even legislative change-programs over which MADD chapters have full control.

UNGERLEIDER, S., & CONNER, R. (1984). Piloting an evaluation research instrument: Site visit report to MADD Central. Unpublished manuscript. UNGERLEID~R, S., & BLOCH, S.A. (1987). Chapter leadership profiles among citizen activists in the drunk driving movement. Jour-

nal ojAlcohol

and Drug Education, 33, 55-72.

VOAS, R.B. (1986). Evaluation of jail as a penalty ing. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 2, 47-70.

for drunk

driv-

F.J. (1985, August). Grass-roots activism and the drunk driving issue: A survey of MADD chapfers. Paper presented at the annual

WEED,

meeting of the American

Sociological

Association,

Washington,

DC.

WENGER, S. (1983). “Deterrence disguises retribution:” H. Lawrence Ross. U.S. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 7, 1-2. WESTGATE, R. (1987, August). Nearly a11 states now in compliance with Zl-age drinking laws. Nation’s Health, 17, 1, 10. ‘This subject is not dealt with in this paper since it is outside its scope. A great deal of corroborating evidence, however, has been gathered on the subject. For more information, see Bloch (1983). Ross (1984), and Voas (1986).