Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH¹, Vanessa T. Kuhn¹, David M. Bishai, MD MPH PhD², Julie S. Mair, JD, MPH¹, and Andrea C. Gielen, ScD, ScM³. (1) Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 North Broadway, 5th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205, 410 955-8022, SFrattar@jhsph.edu, (2) Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Population and Family Health Sciences, 615 N. Wolfe St Room E4622, Baltimore, MD 21205, (3) Health, Behavior & Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 North Broadway, 7th floor, Baltimore, MD 21205

Background: Despite reductions in driving under the influence (DUI) related injuries, drinking and driving was associated with 39% of motor vehicle fatalities in 2004 and remains a serious public health problem. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is implementing court monitoring programs in Louisiana and New Mexico to improve the courts' treatment of DUI cases. Based on these pilot findings, MADD will assess whether and how to initiate court monitoring in other states.

Methods: Using the comparative case study method, we are evaluating the process of implementing court monitoring in New Mexico and Louisiana as part of a comprehensive evaluation. Data include in-depth interviews with MADD staff, judges and prosecutors; and focus groups and surveys of volunteer court monitors. We are using a cross case analysis plan to compare findings between New Mexico and Louisiana.

Results: Preliminary data analyses reveal two very different implementation processes, influenced by each state's cultural attitudes surrounding alcohol and relationships among judges, prosecutors, and police. Additionally, the management styles of each state's MADD chapter are influential. Data obtained from the court monitors provide insight into effective strategies for recruiting, training, and retaining volunteers.

Conclusions: There is significant variation in how court monitoring is implemented in each state. These differences are informing the outcome evaluation, and will be instructive to future court monitoring initiatives. The process evaluation is an effective tool for understanding the success and failure of interventions designed to reduce alcohol-related morbidity and mortality. The comparative case study method is a valid process evaluation method.

Learning Objectives:

• Describe MADD’s court monitoring program, and the different processes involved with implementing this program in New Mexico and Louisiana.
• Utilize the comparative case study as a method for conducting process evaluations.
• Understand the value of process evaluations for interventions aimed at minimizing alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Not Answered