National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice. Research. Development. Evaluation. Office of Justice Programs
Crime Solutions.gov
skip navigationHome  |  Help  |  Contact Us  |  Site Map   |  Glossary
Reliable Research. Real Results. skip navigation
skip navigation Additional Resources:

skip navigation

Program Profile: Turning Point Multiple DUI Treatment Program

Evidence Rating: Promising - One study Promising - One study

Date: This profile was posted on June 06, 2017

Program Summary

This was a residential treatment program that targeted individuals who committed multiple driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenses. The program combined educational components with individualized treatment and therapy to address substance use and interrupt the cycle of committing DUI offenses. The program is rated Promising. The program was shown to significantly reduce the rate of committing any offense and of committing a DUI offense, but not of committing other alcohol-related offenses.

Program Description

Program Goals
The Turning Point Multiple DUI Treatment Program was a 28-day, substance-dependence treatment program in Cincinnati, Ohio. The objective of the program was to treat and house those who committed multiple driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenses. The program included both inpatient and aftercare components, which provided a comprehensive treatment regimen targeting alcohol abuse. The goal of the program was to treat and educate individuals who committed DUI offenses and thereby reduce reoffending. These ends were achieved through diagnosing the substance use problem, establishing an individualized treatment plan, providing clinical services to participants and their family members, providing aftercare services, and supporting abstinence.
 
Target Population
The Turning Point program was intended for men and women who had committed multiple DUI offenses. Program eligibility criteria included the following: 1) multiple DUI offenses, 2) a minimum of a 45-day jail sentence, 3) a minimal security threat, 4) motivation to seek help and willingness to participate in all program components, and 4) residency in Hamilton County (Ohio). The program was not intended for those who suffer from psychological disorders or other serious medical problems, had a history of violent behavior, or had work-release or weekend sentences.
 
Services Provided
After serving a jail sentence of at least 30 days, eligible participants were relocated to the facility to begin the inpatient component of the program. The facility that housed the program had 40 beds available. The program combined educational components with individualized treatment and therapy to comprehensively address substance use and interrupt the cycle of offending for program participants. The six inpatient services included assessment and diagnosis, treatment planning, substance-use education, individual and group counseling, family treatment, and Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) participation. Participants could have visitors, but were not permitted to leave the facility.
 
Once the program was completed, participants returned to court to receive a reduced sentence. The aftercare component then took place over 6 months and included 26 group meetings and attendance at a minimum of three AA/NA meetings per week.

Evaluation Outcomes

top border
Study 1
Pratt, Holsinger, and Latessa (2000) found mixed results when examining the impact of Turning Point. The overall results suggested the residential treatment program reduced the rate of reoffending for Turning Point participants. 
 
Any New Offense
Turning Point participants were 30.0 percent more successful in avoiding any new offense at the 10-year follow up, compared with the comparison group (a statistically significant result).
 
Alcohol-Related Offense
However, there were no statistically significant differences in alcohol-related offenses for Turning Point participants at the 10-year follow up, compared with the comparison group. 
 
New Driving-Under-the-Influence (DUI) Charge
Turning Point participants were 8.9 percent more successful in avoiding new DUI charges at the 10-year follow up, compared with the comparison group.   
bottom border

Evaluation Methodology

top border
Study 1
Pratt, Holsinger, and Latessa (2000) used a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the impact of the Turning Point Multiple DUI Treatment Program on recidivism measures at the 10-year follow-up period. The sample comprised the same participants from a previous 1-year (Langworthy and Latessa 1993) and 4-year follow-up evaluation (Langworthy and Latessa 1996). The treatment group (n=531) consisted of individuals who met the program eligibility criteria and agreed to participate in the Turning Point program; the comparison group (n=192) consisted of individuals with multiple DUI convictions who were adjudicated at the same time as those in the treatment group, but chose not to participate in the intervention. 
 
Most program participants were male (90 percent) and white (77 percent), followed by African American or other race/ethnicity. The average age was 32.6 years, and most program participants (78 percent) had two to five prior DUI convictions. The average length of stay for Turning Point participants’ current incarceration was 50.7 days. Most of the comparison group (96 percent) was male and white (71 percent), followed by African American or other race/ethnicity. The average age of the comparison group was 40.7 years, and most (91 percent) had two to five prior DUI convictions. The average length of stay for the comparison groups’ current incarceration was 77.1 days. Significant differences were found between groups with respect to sex, age, employment status, number of children, number of prior DUI convictions, and amount of time spent in jail for the current offense. These variables were included in the regression analyses as statistical controls. No significant differences were found for measures of race, education, income, and marital status. 
 
Using administrative data, the researchers examined three recidivism outcomes at the 10-year follow up: arrests for any new offense, arrests for an alcohol-related offense, and arrests for a DUI offense. The regression model controlled for six variables on which the groups were found to differ (listed above), as well as the amount of time spent at risk in the community during the follow-up period. 
 
One limitation of the study was that members of the comparison group may have received other substance-use treatment services during the study period such as hospitalization, intensive supervision, or Alcoholics Anonymous groups. However, information was not collected on the extent to which the comparison group received these other services. Furthermore, the authors did not provide any information regarding program dropouts or non-completers.
bottom border

Cost

top border
Though a formal cost analysis has yet to be conducted, the Turning Point Program appears to be a less expensive alternative to incarceration. A 1993 estimate of Turning Point costs were $45 per day while the cost of county jail was $65 per day per individual (Langworthy and Latessa 1993).
bottom border

Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)

top border
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Study 1
Pratt, Travic C., Alex M. Holsinger, and Edward J. Latessa. 2000. “Treating the Chronic DUI Offender ‘Turning Point’ Ten Years Later.” Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 271–81.

bottom border

Additional References

top border
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Applegate, Brandon K., Robert H. Langworthy, and Edward J. Latessa. 1997. “Factors Associated with Success in Treating Chronic Drunk Drivers: The Turning Point Program.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 24(3/4):19–34.


Langworthy, Robert H., and Edward J. Latessa. 1996. “Treatment of Chronic Drunk Drivers: A Four-Year Follow-Up of the Turning Point Project.” Journal of Criminal Justice. 24(3):273–81.


Langworthy, Robert, and Edward J. Latessa, 1993. “Treatment of Chronic Drunk Drivers: The Turning Point Project.” Journal of Criminal Justice 21:265–76.


Latessa, Edward J., Alex M. Holsinger, and Travis C. Pratt. 1999. Ten-Year Follow-Up Evaluation and Assessment of Program Integrity of the Turning Point Program. Cincinnati, Ohio.: University of Cincinnati.

bottom border


Program Snapshot

Age: 18+

Gender: Both

Race/Ethnicity: Black, White, Other

Geography: Urban

Setting (Delivery): Inpatient/Outpatient

Program Type: Alcohol and Drug Therapy/Treatment, Aftercare/Reentry, Group Therapy, Individual Therapy, Residential Treatment Center

Targeted Population: Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Offenders

Current Program Status: Not Active

Listed by Other Directories: National Reentry Resource Center