Effectiveness of Penitentiary Psychoeducational Interventions in Road Safety

Abstract

Background/Aim: The number of convictions related to crimes against road safety continues to increase, with more than half being caused by driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs. In Spain, offenders for crimes against road safety have been widely sentenced to community service orders. Additionally, the penitentiary institution has implemented two intervention programmes, TASEVAL (awareness and re-education) and PROSEVAL (re-education and psychotherapeutic). A field study was designed to estimate the effectiveness of the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL intervention programmes in the reduction of the recidivism rate and drug and alcohol use. Method: A total of 57,532 offenders for crimes against road safety (37,556 sentenced to a community service order of up to 60 days’ duration and 19,976 to a community service order of up to 60 days’ duration and the TASEVAL intervention programme) were followed up in relation to recidivism. And a total of 5,765 (5,117 sentenced to a community service order of over 60 days’ duration and 648 to a community service order of over 60 days’ duration and the PROSEVAL intervention programme) were also followed up in relation to recidivism. 29 attendees on the TASEVAL intervention programme and 32 attendees on the PROSEVAL intervention programme were assessed pre- and post-intervention in unhealthy alcohol use and problematic drug use. Results: The results showed a significant association between the participation in the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL intervention programmes and non-recidivism. Succinctly, compared to community service orders, participation in these programmes increases the non-recidivist rate for the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL intervention programmes by 14.6% and 58.4% respectively. Regarding substance and alcohol use, the TASEVAL programme showed a significant reduction in alcohol and drug use after the implementation of the programme. However, the PROSEVAL programme did not reveal a significant effect on alcohol and drug use (no therapeutic effect). Conclusions: The present study supports the effectiveness of specific intervention programmes for road traffic offenders in the reduction of recidivism. Additionally, these intervention programmes (though not all of them) may have a mitigating effect on the alcohol and drug use mediators of recidivism.

Keywords

• road safety education
• driver intervention
• crimes against road safety
• traffic offenders
• driving under influence (dui)
• community service order
• criminal recidivism