Effectiveness of ASAP (Alcohol Safety Action Program) Education and Rehabilitation Programs (From International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety - Seventh - Proceedings, P 622-629, 1979, Ian R Johnston, ed. See NCJ-73856)

• NCJ Number: 73888
• Author(s): J L Nichols
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 8 pages
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: Australia

Annotation

The effectiveness of Alcohol Safety Action Programs (ASAP) was assessed by analysis of quarterly rearrest survival rates of problem drinkers assigned to either ASAP education or rehabilitation programs, as tabulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation from project findings submitted from a number of ASAP sites.

Abstract

In addition, the central ASAP evaluator at the Department of Transportation collected data from projects on measurable characteristics of their schools and therapy procedures, including the length of program, number of clients, the proportion of program time spent lecturing, and the proportion of time clients spent actively participating. The result of comparisons made across educational school types (lecutre or therapy-oriented) and by problem and nonproblem drinkers (social) showed that problem drinkers exposed to large lecture-oriented schools had significantly higher rearrest rates than those attending more interaction-oriented programs. For social drinkers, the characteristics of the school appeared to make little difference. Findings suggest that problem drinkers should not be exposed to school alcohol education programs using a lecture approach. An examination of the effectiveness of other rehabilitation programs from aggregated data of clients included in various ASAP project reports of varying quality showed that social drinkers referred to rehabilitation programs had lower subsequent rearrest rates than did social drinkers not referred. The findings suggest that social drinkers show a greater susceptibility to positive program effects than problem drinkers, who showed no significant differences between referral and nonreferral for rehabilitation in general. However, problem drinkers referred to intensive, longer session small group therapy had fewer subsequent alcohol-related rearrests than when assigned elsewhere. It is concluded that social drinkers are more generally responsive to treatment of all kinds, whereas problem drinkers respond better to intensive and interactive therapies. Five figures and two references are provided.