Conclusion: The greatest improvement in DWI enforcement in most jurisdictions will be realized by increasing the percentage of patrol officers' time available for looking for and interdicting DWI suspects. However, all involved agencies must be prepared to adapt to the greater demands on their resources (for example, larger case loads) resulting from such increases.

Recommendation: Police command staff should reconsider their policies for allocating personnel and other resources to ensure that sufficient emphasis is being given to DWI enforcement.

Police managers should examine each support function performed by patrol officers to see how arrest and processing time can be reduced.

The possibility of reducing the time spent fulfilling reporting requirements should also be considered. The use of shortened forms and computer technology is one of the most productive ways of increasing officer availability for patrol tasks. Another way of increasing patrol time is to assign support duties during suspect processing to clerical staff or other non-sworn personnel.

Conclusion: The time required to adjudicate driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases is excessive in many jurisdictions, often stretching out for months and, sometimes, for years. This violates a basic tenet of deterrence theory that calls for the timely imposition of punishment for proscribed behavior.

Recommendation: Judicial agencies should examine their procedures to learn where inordinate amounts of time are being spent. Particular attention should be given to the parts of the process that involve pre-trial hearings and continuances. There should be an eye toward restricting the conditions under which the process can be extended in time.

Conclusion: The failure to appear (FTA) by defendants at adjudicative hearings can have a large negative impact on system performance by reducing their availability for determination of guilt and sanctioning if found guilty. The extent of this problem nationwide is not known, but our research suggests that it could be widespread.

Recommendation: Jurisdictions should undertake research to learn the nature and extent of their FTA problem. If the problem is serious, then ways of dealing with it should be devised, including the revocation of the driver license for FTA.

Conclusion: A series of unexpected problems is occurring in the operation of the administrative adjudication components of DWI enforcement. These problems include excessive demands on police officers' time to appear at administrative hearings; procedures that require police officers to file a written request for continuance if unable to appear at a hearing; laws that prohibit a prosecutor from appearing at a hearing, placing the police officer in the role of prosecutor; hearing officers allowing non pertinent issues to be addressed at the hearing; and hearing officers' lack of knowledge of the law, alcohol impairment of driving performance, techniques for determining impairment, or some combination of these. These problems are causing the process to be avoided by police officers in some jurisdictions. Thus, the intended administrative sanctions are avoided by violators.

Recommendation: The requirement for police officers to appear at administrative hearings, scheduling of officers at hearings, qualifications of hearing officers, and pertinent issues that may be addressed at hearings should be examined.

Conclusion: Judges need more information on offender characteristics and sanctioning alternatives to develop effective sentencing packages.

Recommendation: Judges should be provided information on offender characteristics and sanctioning alternatives for use in sentencing. Sentencing guidelines for violations of laws regarding alcohol-related driving should also be provided. Research findings on the effectiveness of sanctions for DWI need to be disseminated to judges in an easy-to-use format.