UNDERSTANDING ‘BEST-PRACTICE’ IN YOUNG
DRIVER OFFENDER PROGRAMS AND
COMPARISON OF THE RTSSV’S ‘DRIVE TO LEARN’
PROGRAM WITH ‘BEST-PRACTICE’
Jennie Oxley
Steve O’Hern
Belinda Clark
September 2014
ii
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Title and sub-title:
Understanding ‘best-practice’ in young driver offender programs and comparison of the RTSSV’s ‘Drive to Learn’
program with ‘best-practice’
Author(s):
Jennie Oxley, Steve O’Hern, Belinda Clark
Sponsoring Organisation(s):
This project was funded through the Victorian Community Road Safety Partnership Program (VCRSPP),
VicRoads and supported by the Road Trauma Support Services Victoria (RTSSV)
Abstract:
A substantial proportion of young people engage in high risk driving-related behaviours. While legislation and
enforcement are recognised as effective means to curb illegal driving behaviours, there is evidence that
behavioural and educational programs are also effective, especially as early intervention programs to divert
youth from entering the Youth Justice system or progressing further as young offenders. The recently developed
‘Drive to Learn’ program is an early intervention program with the aim to reduce road trauma among young
offenders. A component of the development is to understand ‘best-practice’ principles in offender programs,
compare the ‘Drive to Learn’ program with programs that work, and provide recommendations for enhancing the
program.
The findings of the review suggested that, in comparison with ‘best-practice’ principles, the ‘Drive to Learn’
program meets the majority of the recommended intervention characteristics. A suite of recommendations for
RTSSV to consider to enhance the program are provided and address issues surrounding: i) therapeutic
approaches (particularly enhancing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy features, inclusion of components addressing
parental/familial involvement, and enhancing positive peer relationships); ii) consideration of the target group
(particularly the dosage and intensity of the program for low-risk intervention, and recognition of the additional
confounding behaviours and heterogeneity of the population; iii) structure and key messages, particularly
accommodating limitations of youth with learning difficulties, and ensuring road safety messages and delivery
style motivate participants to adopt safer behaviour (driving and other); iv) monitoring and evaluation, including
establishment of enhanced data collection systems including systematic follow-up data, ensure outcomes
measures are appropriate for an evaluation framework, particularly a cost benefit analysis of the program in
terms of road safety outcomes, but also to the youth justice system overall.
Key Words:
Disclaimer
Traffic offender program, TOP, young offender,
recidivism, education program.
Reproduction of this page is authorised.
www.monash.edu.au/muarc
This report is disseminated in the interest of information
exchange. The views expressed here are those of the
authors, and not necessarily those of Monash University
Monash University Accident Research Centre,
Building 70, Clayton Campus, Victoria, 3800, Australia.
Telephone: +61 3 9905 4371, Fax: +61 3 9905 4363
iii
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
iv
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Preface
Project Manager / Team Leader:
Dr Jennie Oxley
Research Team:

Jennie Oxley

Belinda Clark

Steve O’Hern
Contributorship Statement
Ethics Statement
Ethics approval was not required for this project.
Acknowledgment
v
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
vi
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Contents
1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1
Review of the literature .................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.2
Evaluation of the Drive To Learn program and comparison with existing programs ..................... 3
1.2.3
Synthesis of findings ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT.......................................................................................................................... 4
2
YOUTH, RISK TAKING, ‘ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR’ AND DRIVING ............................................................. 5
2.1 YOUTH AND RISKY BEHAVIOURS .............................................................................................................. 5
2.2 RISK FACTORS FOR OFFENDING ................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 YOUNG DRIVERS AND CRASH RISK ............................................................................................................ 9
2.3.1
What are the issues for young driver safety? ............................................................................... 10
2.3.2
Engaging in ‘risk behaviour’: Is it the ‘young driver problem’ or the ‘problem young driver’? ..... 12
3
CURRENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES ADDRESSING YOUNG OFFENDERS AND THEIR
EFFECTIVENESS .............................................................................................................................................. 26
3.1 THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 26
3.1.1
The Youth Justice System in Australia ........................................................................................... 27
3.2 YOUNG OFFENDER INTERVENTIONS ...................................................................................................... 29
3.2.1
What doesn’t work ....................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.2
What does work ............................................................................................................................ 31
3.2.3
Characteristics of effective youth offender programs .................................................................. 33
3.3 MANAGING THE SAFETY OF YOUNG DRIVERS ........................................................................................ 39
3.4 YOUNG DRIVER OFFENDER PROGRAMS ................................................................................................. 41
3.4.1
Evidence-based principles for driving offence principles............................................................... 42
3.4.2
Sanction effectiveness for juvenile offenders ................................................................................ 44
3.4.3
Targets for intervention and favourable program structures ....................................................... 45
3.5 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 48
4
REVIEW OF THE DRIVE TO LEARN PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 51
4.4.10
4.4.11
4.4.12
5
Activity 4: Exploring ‘The Ripple Effect’ .................................................................................... 59
Video Presentation ................................................................................................................... 59
Activity 5: Exploring Precursors ................................................................................................ 59
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 63
5.1 COMPARISON OF DRIVE TO LEARN PROGRAM WITH BEST PRACTICE .................................................... 63
5.2 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 68
5.2.1
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 68
5.2.2
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 72
6
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 74
vii
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Tables
TABLE ‎2-1 RISK FACTORS FOR YOUTH OFFENDING .............................................................................................................. 9
TABLE ‎3-1 RECIDIVISM EFFECT SIZES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS WITHIN EACH TREATMENT PHILOSOPHY ................. 36
TABLE ‎4-1: RTSSV PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................... 52
TABLE ‎4-2 RTAS PROCESS COMPONENTS ...................................................................................................................... 53
TABLE ‎5-1 COMPARISON OF DRIVE TO LEARN PROGRAM WITH ‘BEST PRACTICE’ CHARACTERISTICS ............................................ 64
Figures
FIGURE ‎2-1 THE REVISED BEHAVIOUR OF YOUNG NOVICE DRIVER SCALE (BYDNS) MODEL ..................................................... 13
FIGURE ‎3-1 OVERVIEW OF THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA (SOURCE: (AIHW 2014)) ............................................. 28
viii
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
ix
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
1
INTRODUCTION
Young people, especially as drivers, represent a leading road safety challenge. A recent report showed
that traffic crashes are the single greatest killer of people aged 15-24 years in OECD countries,
accounting for 35 percent of all deaths for this age group (OECD 2006). Similar proportions are found in
Australia.
A substantial proportion of young people engage in high risk driving behaviours, such as speeding,
drink/drug driving, ‘hooning’, non seat-belt use and unlicensed driving. Legislation and enforcement
systems are recognized as an effective means to curb illegal driving behaviours, particularly amongst
young drivers. Indeed, such legislation, allowing for the testing and penalizing of drivers who are
apprehended for engaging in illegal behaviours, has been in operation across Australia for many years.
There is also evidence to suggest that these systems, in conjunction with behavioural and educational
programs, can achieve greater gains in reducing the prevalence and recidivism of these behaviours.
The Road Trauma Support Services Victoria (RTSSV) is a not-for-profit organisation, founded in 1994,
to provide specialist services for people whose lives have been directly affected by road trauma
(RTSSV 2013). In addition to offering support and counselling services for people affected by road
trauma, the RTSSV endeavours to reduce the incidence of crashes and trauma across the community
through conducting educational programs. A suite of programs have been conceptualised and
developed by the RTSSV team, and include:

Road Trauma Awareness Seminar (RTAS) for traffic offenders, which is offered as part of a
sentencing option by referral through the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

Youth Traffic Offender Program (YTOP) designed to reduce recidivism though raising young
traffic offenders’ awareness about the long-term consequences of high risk driving behaviour
for themselves and the broader road user public.

Road Trauma Awareness Programs which aim to increase road trauma awareness amongst
target community groups (e.g. the Road Trauma Awareness Program for members of the
African Community)

Education sessions for corporate groups, developed as part of a proactive Occupational Health
and Safety Strategy (RTSSV 2013).
The RTAS in particular, was introduced in 2004. This 2.5 hour program targets first time or recidivist
traffic offenders (all ages) who are referred via the Magistrates Court, solicitors, or through self-referral.
The objectives of the RTAS are to:

Reduce crash involvement and hence road trauma through education;

Reduce recidivism rates;

Raise awareness in offenders about the impact of their behaviour ;
1
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program

Bring about attitude and behaviour changes; and,

Instil legal and community acceptable standards of behaviour.
In response to the high number of young people (aged between 14-17 years) attending court for first
and second driving offences, representatives from the Dandenong Children’s Court approached the
RTSSV in 2012 to assist in their efforts to reduce young driver offences and develop a complementary
educational program for first and second offending young drivers. Following this request, the feasibility
of developing a program, similar to the RTAS, to address this target group of traffic offenders was
explored. The resulting program was the RTSSV’s ‘Drive to Learn’ (DTL) program, which commenced
in July 2014. The aim of this early intervention based program is to reduce road trauma through:

Discouraging high risk driving behaviour by educating teenagers who have been apprehended
for illegal driving behaviours about the risks associated with high risk driving behaviours;

Encouraging safe driving behaviour; and,

Divert or at least reduce the progress of youth from (further) entry into the youth justice system.
While the development of the DTL program is an innovative and exciting achievement, it is also
important to explore if the program meets best-practice standards and principles and ultimately
contributes to a reduction crash and injury risk among young drivers.
1.1
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this report is to provide an independent assessment of the DTL program, to
compare the program with existing best-practice young offender programs to determine if DTL is based
on best-practice principles involving young offenders and, where necessary, offer recommendations for
modification or enhancement to the program.
The key tasks for this project were to:

Identify international best-practice principles in driver education programs and existing young
offender programs;

Conduct a comparison of the DTL program with other promising young offender programs and
general best-practice principles; and,

Provide recommendations for enhancing the DTL program, particularly with regard to key
messages, program content and delivery, and data collection to support future empirical
evaluations of the program.
2
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
1.2
METHODOLOGY
This project involved a review of the literature, a targeted examination of the DTL program, and
comparison of the DTL program with best practice.
1.2.1 Review of the literature
For each of the topics addressed in the review, recent published research and other grey literature was
sought. An extensive range of search engines and databases, available through Monash University
library services and the ARRB library services, was utilised to source relevant published scientific
literature. The main databases and search engines that were used included: Embase, SafetyLit,
ScienceDirect, Ingentaconnect, Tandfonline, CRCNetbase, and other relevant databases including
PsychInfo, Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus. In addition, grey literature and government reports
were sourced though the Monash library, libraries associated with relevant government agencies, key
contacts within government agencies and from other institutional libraries providing literature
addressing injury, injury prevention and home safety.
Key words included: driver education, novice/young driver, road safety education programs, traffic
offender courses, mandatory treatment, recidivism, juvenile offenders, habitual offenders, rehabilitation,
intervention, evaluation.
The key issues addressed as part of the literature review include:

Understanding the issues surrounding young driver crash risk;

Managing young driver crash risk and existing research knowledge of evidence-based
principles;

The effectiveness of community and legal sanctions for juvenile offenders;

Targets for intervention and favourable program structures; and,

Guidance regarding the application of evidence-based principles to reduce recidivisms among
juvenile offenders.
1.2.2
Evaluation of the Drive To Learn program and comparison with existing programs
The second component of this project was to gain an understanding of the DTL program, what it offers,
its content and program delivery, and to compare this with characteristics of existing ‘best-practice’
programs.
Comparisons focused on the following issues:

Characteristics of the target audience and key messages

Learning and educational principles for target group
3
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program

Risk factors for offending and recidivism

Program delivery and content
1.2.3
Synthesis of findings
Here, the research team brings together the findings of the best-practice review and comparison of the
DTL program with existing promising programs. This phase provides an enhanced understanding of the
potential for the DTL program to meet best-practice principles and achieve its overall objectives.
A set of recommendations for enhancement to the program is provided. Recommendations address
system changes, delivery and content enhancements, recommendations for further data collection and
evaluation studies, and areas for further research.
1.3
OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
This report provides the findings of the above tasks.
Chapter 2 presents the findings of the review of the published and grey literature on the behaviour of
youth (focussing on risks associated with adoption of antisocial, risk-taking and delinquency behaviour)
and young driver crash risk and summarised the evidence regarding what is currently known about the
contributing factors to youth risk-taking behaviour and young driver crashes.
Chapter 3 presents the findings of the review regarding effective initiatives to address risky behaviour
among youth. First, a general overview of the ways in which youth antisocial behaviour is managed in
the Youth Justice System is provided. Second, an overview of how the safety of young drivers is
managed within a Safe System context is provided, with a particular focus on legislation and
enforcement, and offender educational approaches. It describes general principles of juvenile and
young driver offender prevention programs, their content and delivery, and what is considered ‘bestpractice’. Evaluations of programs are presented, if available.
Chapter 4 presents the findings of the assessment of the current RTSSV DTL program.
Chapter 5 draws together the findings, making some comparisons between best practice and the
RTSSV Drive to Learn program and providing a suite of recommendations for the way forward.
4
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
2
YOUTH, RISK TAKING, ‘ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR’ AND DRIVING
In order to develop and evaluate best practice programs and initiatives addressing risk taking behaviour
of youth, including risky driving and other criminal, delinquent or antisocial behaviour, an understanding
of the contributing factors associated with adoption of these behaviours is essential.
This chapter, therefore, presents the current literature addressing these issues, beginning with a
description of risky, antisocial and delinquent behaviour, including offences and in particular driving
offences.
2.1
YOUTH AND RISKY BEHAVIOURS
Youth is the period of time during which dependent children develop into independent adults. It is
therefore a period of rapid emotional, physical and intellectual change, and a critical time for
establishing and reinforcing good health and social behaviours. While many young people successfully
navigate this important transition period, young people who are unable to make this transition smoothly
can face significant difficulties in both the short and long term (AIHW 2007).
While there is a perception that young people rebel against authority, experiment with illegal
substances, thrill-seek and are adversely affected by peers, the majority of youth engage in numerous
activities that are socially acceptable. Notwithstanding, key indicators suggest that the level of engaging
in risk-taking antisocial behaviours (including offending) is on the increase (Morris et al. 2004, AIHW
2007). In their teens young people may experiment with illicit drugs, underage alcohol consumption, or
drive vehicles without a licence prior to reaching the legal licensing age limit. Young people may also
congregate in public places and on public transport and engage in behaviour that is anti-social or a
public nuisance. The AIHW (2007) further reported that, while most young people in Australia are ‘doing
well’, there are areas where further gains in health and wellbeing could be achieved, particularly among
young Indigenous Australians, young people in regional and remote areas and young people suffering
socioeconomic disadvantage. In particular, this study reported some significant areas of concern for
youth, including:

Injury (including poisoning) continues to be the leading cause of death for young people,
accounting for two-thirds of all deaths of young people in 2004. Transport accidents
accounted for 45% and intentional self-harm (suicide) accounted for 27% of all injury
deaths.

Almost one-third (31%) of young people drank alcohol in amounts that put them at risk or
high risk of alcohol-related harm in the short term, and 11% at risk of long-term harm.

Around 17% of young people were current smokers in 2004
5
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program

The proportion of young people on care and protection orders and in out-of-home care
continued to increase. Over 9,000 12–17 year olds were on a care and protection order
in 2006.

Young adults (those aged 18–24 years) accounted for 20% of the total prison population
in 2006, and there were over 9,000 12–17 year olds under juvenile justice supervision in
2003–04.
In an attempt to understand risk-taking, antisocial and delinquent behaviours, it is an important first step
to, define the groups and behaviours that constitute youths and behaviours that can be considered
those that require management through the youth justice system. It should be noted that, while many
young people exhibit some risk taking behaviour, only a minority engage in multiple risk-taking
behaviour that is persistent and require management through the youth justice system.
Three broad categories of juvenile offenders are identified in the literature:

Serious youth delinquents. This group includes youth who have committed serious or violent
offences, including: homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, or serious arson. Serious
youth delinquents have their own typical offense profile. This group is responsible for a
disproportionately large number of crimes (especially serious crimes). They account for onethird of all juvenile arrests for arson, one-fifth of juvenile arrests for sex offenses and vandalism,
one-eighth of juvenile arrests for burglary and forcible rape, and one-twelfth of juvenile arrests
for violent crime (Snyder 2001).
Serious delinquency is characterized by antisocial attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive
emotional states and personality patterns like weak self-control or restlessness and aggression
(Simourd and Andrews 1994, Heilbrun et al. 2000, Cottle et al. 2001).
Serious youth delinquency is often preceded by antisocial behaviour in early childhood, and
other important correlates are antisocial friends and isolation from non-criminal others,
parenting problems in the domains of affection/caring and monitoring/discipline, low levels of
achievement in school or at work, little involvement in non-criminal leisure and recreational
pursuits, and substance abuse (Simourd and Andrews 1994, Henggeler 1996).

Other youth delinquents. This group includes those who commit other serious offences, but
exclude serious delinquents.

Youth showing persistent disruptive or antisocial behaviour. This group includes those
who engage in less serious criminal or delinquent behaviours and who are at risk of committing
less serious offences.

The terms “persistent disruptive” or "antisocial behaviour" can be used to describe the range of
behaviours that this group typically engage in, including violence toward people or animals,
destruction of property, deceitfulness, theft and/or serious rule violations, truancy and
incorrigibility. Antisocial behaviour has emerged as an important issue of concern to the legal
6
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
system, to the public, to researchers and to practitioners in many countries. The literature used
a range of terms for this group and group of behaviours, including minor offender, delinquent or
conduct disorder are often used to describe the person or the behaviour. Generally, ‘antisocial
behaviour’ is used in this report to describe the group of interest.

2.2
Antisocial behaviour can result in harm to the individual, other people or their property. The
costs for the youth, the family and society may be large both in terms of physical and emotional
harm, but also in terms of money. It is estimated that a substantial proportion of adolescents
participate in antisocial behaviour of some sort which is usually not considered to be a serious
crime. Only 5-10 percent of all youth who show form of antisocial behaviour continue with
serious antisocial behaviour in adulthood (Moffitt 1993, Patterson 1993). In fact, only about 5
percent of all children exhibit an early, persistent and extreme pattern of antisocial behaviour.
However, this small group accounts for 50-60 percent of all crimes committed by youth (Stattin
and Magnusson 1991, Howell 1995, Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber 1998, Loeber and
Farrington 2000).
RISK FACTORS FOR OFFENDING
A wide body of literature has established the key risk factors for engaging in youth criminal activities
and ‘antisocial’ behaviours. Overall, these centre around static and dynamic factors. Static risk factors
are historical features and characteristics of the individual and include genetic and biological factors,
and early onset of violence (these factors cannot be easily changed), and skill limitations (which are
more readily altered). Dynamic factors are individual, social or situational factors. These include
individual characteristics such as attitudes, motivation and stress levels, family dynamics including the
type and quality of parenting, school and peer group associations, and vocational and recreational
factors (Greenwood 2008). These factors can and do change and are therefore more amenable to
modification through intervention (Borum 2003).
It is first important to note that, while delinquency or antisocial behaviour often peaks in later
adolescence, the evidence shows that the earlier a child or youth enters the system, the more likely
they are to continue engaging in these activities, more likely to become chronic offenders and more
likely to reappear in court regularly than youth first referred to court at a later age (Loeber et al. 2003,
Chen et al. 2005), and more likely to continue a trajectory of criminal behaviour into adulthood
(Ludbrook et al. 2012).
One of the key findings from a substantial body of criminological research is that persistent delinquent
acts in adolescence emerge as the outcome of a predictable developmental trajectory of behaviour
problems beginning in childhood (Robins 1966, Farrington 1994). One feature of this continuum from
childhood to adolescence is the presence of stable aggressive behaviours. Key findings from a number
of studies have underlined this stability of aggressive behaviours. For example, there is evidence of
continuity between aggressive, noncompliant, oppositional and defiant behaviours at an early age
(between 2 and 7 years), and externalising these behaviours as adolescents (Moffitt 1993).
7
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
There are additional biological factors affecting the emergence of conduct disorders and juvenile
delinquency including:

An interaction between childhood maltreatment and a variation in the gene that produces the
enzyme monoamine oxidase. Badly treated boys with this gene variation were more likely to
become violent adults than boys who were badly treated but did not have the gene variation
(Caspi et al. 2002).

Adolescents with conduct disorders have lower arousal levels than normal adolescents, and
respond less to positive reinforcement and punishment (Carr 2003)

Children and teenagers with conduct problems and delinquency often have difficulty with verbal
reasoning, learning and reading, and self-regulation (Carr 2003, Rucklidge et al. 2013).

In ambiguous situations, children with conduct disorders attribute hostile intentions to others
and respond aggressively. The reactions of peers confirm their perceptions.

Children and adolescents with conduct disorders have an inability to generate and implement
solutions to social problems.
Although delinquent behaviour was once thought to be a product of “broken homes” and single parent
families, poor family interaction styles have been found to predict delinquent behaviour more powerfully
than family structure. A low level of appropriate parental monitoring, even at age five, has been found to
be predictive of higher levels of delinquent behaviour among teenagers (Henry, et al., 1993).
In addition, research suggests that coercive parenting styles are associated with increased risk of
delinquent behaviour (Reid et al. 2002). Coercive parents use three types of coercive interaction: 1)
they engage in few positive interactions with their children; 2) they punish children frequently,
inconsistently and ineffectively; and 3) they negatively reinforce conduct problems by confronting and
punishing the child briefly then inadvertently withdrawing the confrontation or punishment (backing
down) when the child escalates their antisocial behaviour. The child learns that escalating their
behaviour results in parental withdrawal. The more parents use coercive strategies, and the more often
there is conflict within the family, the more likely it is that young people will be aggressive in later life
and at risk of criminal behaviour.
Over time children exposed to this parenting style develop a coercive relational style which may lead to
rejection by prosocial peers, and resistance and conflictual relationships with teachers. By adolescence,
academic underachievement and rejection by prosocial peers may lead young people to socialise with
antisocial peers. Antisocial boys mutually reinforce one another’s “rule-breaking talk”, which predicts
later delinquency and substance abuse. Antisocial peers also model, reinforce and maintain aggressive
and delinquent behaviours. While the parents and families of these children have fewer non-coercive
parenting strategies, their supervisory practices are lax, which creates further opportunities for
exposure and influence by delinquent peers.
8
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Other studies have found that being male, and involvement with delinquent peers highly influence the
likelihood of delinquent involvement (Weintraub and Gold 1991). Membership into a deviant peer group
often plays an important role in delinquent involvement, and these friendships often serve to “train”
adolescents how to be delinquent (Dishion et al. 1996). Deviant friendships are often marked by higher
conflict and lower supportive qualities (Dishion et al. 1995), as well as higher levels of hostility within the
friendship (Windle 1994).
Table 2-1 provides a summary of the key risk factors for the development of conduct disorder and
juvenile delinquency.
Table 2-1 Risk factors for youth offending
Source: (Ludbrook et al. 2012)
2.3
YOUNG DRIVERS AND CRASH RISK
Given that the focus of this review is on the sub-set of youth offender behaviours, that of behaviours on
the road, including driving unlicensed, theft of vehicles, and risky driving behaviour, it is important to
also describe the literature surrounding young driver crash risk and contributing factors.
Road deaths and serious injuries amongst young novice drivers and passengers remain unacceptably
high and represents a serious public health issue. They are among the most vulnerable road users in
Australia and New Zealand, as in most developed countries world-wide, particularly during their first
months of driving but also during the first 6-12 months of unsupervised driving (Williams 1999, Mayhew
et al. 2003, McCartt et al. 2003, Braitman et al. 2008). Worldwide statistics show that the crash rate for
novice drivers far exceeds crash and fatality rates of older (middle aged) drivers, being between
approximately four times higher than safer age group drivers, and this is particularly so amongst the
newest drivers (this group’s crash rate is about three times higher than that of older novice drivers).
9
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Elvik (2010) has recently suggested that the injury rate of novice drivers is up to ten times higher than
for the safest age group and that these rates might even be increasing.
Young drivers are overrepresented in crash and traffic fatality statistics. In member countries of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2006) between 18 and 30 percent of
killed drivers are between 15 and 24 years old, although the same age group constitutes only between
9 and 13 percent of the population in their countries. As an example, the overall number of road deaths
in Australia has decreased marginally (an overall reduction of -2.3%) between 2003 and 2012, with
overall reductions of 3.1 percent amongst drivers and 4.2 percent amongst passengers. Moreover,
there has been a larger overall decline in the number of young drivers aged 17 to 25 years involved in
fatal outcome crashes, from 206 driver deaths in 2003 to 141 driver deaths in 2012, a net reduction of
5.1 percent. However, 23 percent of drivers killed were aged between 18 and 25 years, despite this age
group representing only around 14 percent of Australian licence holders. Further, young adults are at
high risk of dying as passengers, with young passengers representing two out of every seven
passengers killed in Australia in 2007 (BITRE 2013).
2.3.1
What are the issues for young driver safety?
As noted previously, adolescence marks a period of time when rapid and extreme physical, cognitive,
and psychosocial changes are occurring and the high crash risk of young novice drivers reflects the
effects of both youth and inexperience. The elevated risk associated with young drivers is largely
attributed to i) lack of experience, ii) age factors, including immature brain functioning and underdeveloped cognitive-perceptual skills, iii) lack of insight, iv) low level of actual knowledge and skill,
especially hazard perception skill; and iv) propensity for risk-taking and sensation seeking, including
intentional risk-taking (Gregersen and Berg 1994, Steinberg 2008, Chen et al. 2009, Simons-Morton et
al. 2011, Williams et al. 2012). Gregersen and Berg (1994) added that these factors may also be
influenced by motivational and attitudinal factors governed by individual, cultural and situational factors
outside the traffic situation, as noted in the previous section.
There are numerous persistent characteristics evident in young novice driver crashes, fatalities and
offences, including variables relating to the young driver themselves including maturation (brain and
social) and gender, broader social influences which include their passengers parenting and other
socialization factors, the car they drive, and when and how they drive, and their risky driving behaviour
in particular. Moreover, there are a range of psychosocial factors influencing the behaviour of young
novice drivers, including the social influences of parents and peers, and person-related factors such as
age-related factors, attitudes and motivations, and sensation seeking. These are discussed below.
2.3.1.1
Maturation: brain development
Adolescence involves continued cognitive maturation. Compared with younger children, thinking
becomes more abstract and less concrete, allowing adolescents to consider multiple aspects of their
actions and decisions at one time, assess potential consequences of a decision, consider outcomes
associated with behavioural choices, and plan for the future. These cognitive changes are coupled with
psychosocial development, including susceptibility to peer pressure and increased need for autonomy.
10
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
These newfound cognitive and psychosocial capacities have several implications for teen driving and
safety, including (1) skill development and expertise, (2) regulatory competency (e.g., susceptibility to
distraction, emotional control, and (3) self-regulation in the context of perceived risk (Luna et al. 2004,
Keating and Halpern-Felsher 2008).
There is also evidence showing that the areas of the adolescent brain that are important for safe driving,
such as those that deal with multi-tasking, impulse control and the ability to envision consequences of
action, are not fully developed, with implications for safe driving. Young drivers are thought to lack the
perceptual and cognitive skills necessary to safely interact with the driving environment, and experience
difficulty translating these skills into safe driving, mainly due to under-developed perceptual and
cognitive skills necessary to safely interact with the driving environment (Gregersen 1996). Translation
of skills into safe driving requires complex strategies, expertise, and concentration, with errors in
execution often resulting in serious injuries, even fatal outcomes.
Although teens are generally successful at acquiring lower order driving skills, adolescents are not
cognitively mature enough to fully execute safe driving skills.
2.3.1.2
Maturation: social development
There is also emerging evidence suggesting a link between age-related behaviour and continued
maturation, and therefore between behavioural immaturity and crash risk. Neurological evidence
suggests that anatomical and physiological characteristics of regions of the brain governing impulse
control, prioritization, and strategy (the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex) are still “under construction”
during teen years and do not develop fully until the age of approximately 25 years (Giedd 2004, Gogtay
et al. 2004, Dahl 2008, Keating and Halpern-Felsher 2008, Lewis-Evans 2010).
This area of the brain has been linked to the inhibiting of impulses, poor judgement, the ability to weigh
the consequences of decisions, and elevated emotionality; hence substantial time is required before
mature judgement clearly impacts driving safety (Gogtay et al. 2004). In addition, over confidence is
considered a potential factor in crash involvement: young drivers tend to relatively under-estimate the
risk of crash involvement and over-estimate their own driving skills (Gregersen 1996). The result is that
particular risks arise from regulatory challenges that occur in complex and distracting contexts.
Dahl (2008) argues that pubertal brain changes appear to influence a wide range of emotional
processes and motivational tendencies in ways that interact with cognitive control systems, as well as in
ways that may provide insights into aspects of risk taking, sensation seeking, and some types of
reckless decisions in adolescence relevant to driving. The findings of his examination of brain
immaturity and risk behaviour suggest that adolescents engage in relatively fewer prefrontal cognitive
control and regulatory processes compared with adults when making decisions permitting a relatively
greater influence from affective systems. This results in adolescents being more prone to risk-taking in
certain situations, including when in social and peer contexts that activate strong feelings. Moreover,
Dahl (2008) suggested that adolescents do not simply take more risks, they appear to be more
vulnerable to a wide range of emotional influences, depending on the specific context. Taken together,
Dahl argues that “… these studies highlight the unique contributions of a developmental
11
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
neurobehavioral perspective and, in particular, the need to understand the complex interplay between
cognitive and affective systems in the maturation of self-control” (p. S281).
2.3.2
Engaging in ‘risk behaviour’: Is it the ‘young driver problem’ or the ‘problem young
driver’?
One of the major debates in young driver research is whether the primary causal crash factor (and
therefore primary target for intervention) is underdeveloped skills due to inexperience – ‘the young
driver problem’, or intentional risk taking associated with adolescence – ‘the problem young driver’.
While both have been clearly established as contributors, the debate continues.
The research addressing inexperience, lack of hazard perception skills, etc., has an underlying
assumption that the primary explanation for why adolescents take risks, including those related to
driving, is that teens cannot adequately assess risk, they exaggerate the amount of control they have
over their driving abilities and driving outcomes, and they perceive themselves as invulnerable to harm.
However, it may be the case that some novice drivers intentionally or deliberately take risks.
As examples, (McKnight and McKnight 2003) evaluated behavioural factors contributing to crashes
involving drivers aged 16-19 years olds. For younger, less experienced drivers (16.5-17.5 years), a
significantly greater proportion of crashes were attributed to lack of visual search prior to left turns, not
watching the car ahead, driving too fast for conditions, and failure to adjust to wet roads. However, a
significantly smaller proportion of crashes involving the younger driver group involved following too
closely and alcohol impairment. Males were significantly over-represented in speed, fatigue and
alcohol-related crashes, while females were significantly over-represented in crashes involving
inadequate search before left turns (i.e. across traffic, equivalent to right turn in Australia and NZ) and
before crossing intersections. However, overall, age and gender differences were relatively few and
small in magnitude, indicating that behavioural factors explaining crashes can be broadly generalized
across the young driver population at large. A limitation was that driving experience per se, was not
measured and therefore could not be separately disentangled from the effects of driver age.
Nevertheless, McKnight and McKnight (2003) concluded that the ‘‘overwhelming majority’’ of crashes
were due to failure to ‘‘employ routine safe operating practices’’ and failure to recognize the inherent
risk rather than ‘‘thrill seeking’’ or deliberate risk taking. In contrast, a very small minority of crashes
involved deliberate risk-taking, such as excessive speeds and reckless driving. In contrast, Clarke et al.
(2005) concluded that a large proportion of crashes resulted from intentional risk taking rather than any
particular failure of skill.
Senserrick (2006) noted a number of methodological differences between the two studies – age range
and experience level of drivers studied; subjective interpretation of crash report data. However,
Senserrick also urges researchers to move beyond this debate and suggests that both inexperience
and risk-taking (intentional and unintentional) are important variables to consider. Similarly, Shope
(2006) noted that “underlying these is a multitude of contributing and moderating factors, which are not
all amenable to change”.
12
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Others too, make these distinctions. Rothengatter (1997) argued that performance as well as
motivational and attitudinal factors may be important for safe driving. Also, according to Peräaho et al.
(2003), it is important to distinguish between ‘what the driver can do’ (performance factors), and ‘what
the driver is willing to do’ (motivational and attitudinal factors). Likewise, Parker et al. (1995) and Aberg
and Rimmo (1998) distinguished between errors and violation in driver behaviour (Peräaho et al. 2003).
Performance is linked to driving skills and the ability to avoid errors and accidents in urgent situations.
On the other hand, violations relate primarily to how the driver decides to use his or her skills
(Tronsmoen 2011).
Simons-Morton (2011) makes a further distinction, suggesting that: “There are two important stages in
adolescent development of safe driving competence. The first stage, the novice driver stage, is defined
by highly elevated crash rates at licensure that decline rapidly during the first year or so of licensure.
The novice young driver problem is largely a matter of inexperience and the lengthy period of time
required to learn how to drive safely. The second stage, the young driver stage, is defined by higherthan-average crash rates for young drivers relative to older, experienced adults. This part of the young
driver problem is due greatly to the propensity of younger drivers to drive in a more risky fashion than
older, more experienced drivers.”
These findings highlight that both intentional and unintentional risk factors are at play.
Scott-Parker et al. (2012) developed the Behaviour of Young Novice Drivers Scale (BYNDS), in an
attempt to disentangle which behaviours might be considered intentional and unintentional risky driving
behaviours (see Figure 2-1).
Source: Scott-Parker et al. (2012)
Figure 2-1 The revised Behaviour of Young Novice Driver Scale (BYDNS) model
13
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Utilising the BYNDS, Scott-Parker et al. (2012) found that, during the first six months of independent
driving, self-reported crashes were associated with fixed violations, risky driving exposure, and
misjudgement; self-reported offences were moderately associated with risky driving exposure and
transient violations; and road-rule compliance intentions were highly associated with transient violations.
2.3.2.1
Unintentional risky driving: Inexperience
Inexperience is thought by many to be the main contributing factor to crash and injury risk amongst
young novice drivers. The acquisition of any complex set of skills requires a significant amount of time
(Keating and Halpern-Felsher 2008). Driving is a complex task and much of the literature on young
drivers points to acquisition of experience (and therefore lack of experience) as a major contributory
factor to their crash risk. A range of higher-order cognitive-perceptual skills are important for safe
driving, including information processing, hazard perception, situational awareness, attentional control,
time-sharing and self-calibration. However, the literature also suggests that age, immaturity and driving
experience are generally closely linked – and one of the methodological challenges of research on
novice drivers is to be able to disentangle the relative contributions of age, immaturity and experience.
The young novice driver is faced with many new situations and tasks which all require mental
resources. In particular, the perceptual situation is new and imposes special demands on visual search
skills and interpretation of what is happening in a dynamic traffic environment. It is well established that
novice drivers need to engage more mental capacity to handle all the situations that occur during
driving and that the novice driver cannot handle these new situations as well as experienced drivers.
Learning basic vehicle management requires only a few hours of instruction and practice, but
judgement consistent with safe driving is thought to develop only with substantial driving experience.
Lack of driving skill may be less important than poor judgement, which develops more slowly than
motor skills with extensive driving experience and critical brain maturation. Indeed, one of the issues
extensively addressed in the literature is the ability to perceive hazards. Good hazard perception skill
can only be acquired through experience and many studies have demonstrated that novice drivers are
less likely than experienced drivers to anticipate hazards, especially ones that are difficult to detect
(Fisher et al. 2002, Pradhan et al. 2005)
A recent review was undertaken of eleven (1990 or newer) studies that tried to separate the crash
effects of age and experience, represented by length of licensure. The weight of evidence is that age
and experience have important, independent effects on crash risk, even after differences in driving
mileage are accounted for. The studies consistently found that teenage drivers had dramatically higher
crash rates than older drivers, particularly drivers older than 25, after controlling for length of licensure.
Studies that distinguished 16-year-olds found that crash rates for novice 16-year-olds were higher than
rates for novice 17-year-olds, but crash rates for novice 17-year-olds were not consistently higher than
rates for novice 18- to 19-year-olds. With regard to experience, the weight of evidence suggests a
steep learning curve among drivers of all ages, particularly teenagers, and strong benefits from longer
licensure. Of the studies that attempted to quantify the relative importance of age and experience
factors, most found a more powerful effect from length of licensure (McCartt et al. 2009).
14
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
The most widely researched skill in relation to driving experience is hazard perception (Elander et al.
1993). Hazard perception is the ability to perceive and identify specific hazards in the driving
environment (McKenna and Crick 1994), and involves scanning of the traffic environment, evaluating
other drivers’ location, predicting objects and other drivers’ behaviour and acting on that information
(Ferguson 2003). Several studies have shown differences in visual search strategies between young
novice drivers and experienced drivers. In particular, strategies of young novice drivers are less flexible,
they concentrate on a smaller visual area, fixations are of longer duration, they are slower at detecting
hazards, and are poor at detecting distant hazards compared to experienced drivers (Mourant and
Rockwell 1972, Chapman and Underwood 1998, Falkmer and Gregersen 2001). A recent Australian
study supplemented these findings and additionally showed that young novice drivers tended to focus
their attention on near hazards, in particular those in adjoining lanes, suggesting that they were
significantly poorer than experienced drivers at detecting hazards in the driver’s lane (Whelan et al.
2002).
It is widely accepted that hazard perception, i.e. situation awareness to hazardous situations is a skill
that is highly correlated with traffic crashes (Horswill et al. 2008). Studies also show that experienced
drivers perceive potential risk situations better and more quickly than novice drivers (Quimby and Watts
1981, Finn and Bragg 1986, Drummond 1994, McKenna and Crick 1994, Renge 1998). Drivers who
can detect hazards faster are less involved in traffic crashes than those who detect hazards slower
(e.g., (Hull and Christie 1993), cited in McKenna and Crick (1994);(Pelz and Krupat 1974, Wallis and
Horswill 2007). Likewise, young inexperienced drivers, who demonstrate poor hazard perception skills
relative to experienced drivers, are much more likely to be involved in a crash (e.g., (Pollatsek et al.
2006), cited in Borowsky et al. (2009).
In their examination of detection of road hazards by novice and adult drivers, Lee et al. (2008) found
significant differences between teen drivers and more experienced adult drivers using a combined
hazard detection analysis. The findings also showed that the adult drivers observed hazards and
demonstrated overt recognition of hazards more frequently than the teen drivers, and that a large
portion of teen drivers failed to disengage from peripheral task engagement in the presence of hazards.
2.3.2.2
Intentional risky driving behaviour
As indicated above, there are various definitions and underlying causes of risky driving behaviour which
the young novice driver may perform with or without being aware of the increased risks, however, the
analyses of crash and violation/offence statistics clearly show heightened risk due to engaging in
particular risky behaviours including speeding, following too closely, unsafe accelerations, rapid lane
change, drink/drug driving, aggressive driving, etc.(Sarkar and Andreas 2004). Moreover, there is much
research attesting to the fact that a high proportion of young novice driver crashes arise from voluntary
risky driver behaviour (Catchpole et al. 1994, Ivers et al. 2009). In addition, others suggest that higher
risk acceptance increases the risk of serious injury from a car crash by eight times (Turner and McClure
2004), and that generally, teenagers’ perceptions of their own skills and those of drivers around them
contribute to their risky behaviour. There is also evidence that young drivers, and particularly young
male drivers, are highly likely to over-estimate their skills (Gregersen and Bjurulf 1996). Moreover, the
15
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
research suggests that drivers (of all ages) who participate in one type of risky driving behaviour are
more likely to engage in other types of risky driving behaviour (Beirness and Simpson 1988, Caspi et al.
1997, Williams 1998, Bingham and Shope 2004), leading to the suggestion that high-risk driving
behaviour is part of a broader underlying problem behaviour syndrome (Jessor and Jessor 1977,
Jessor 1987). There is also evidence to suggest that crashes resulting from intentional risky driver
behaviours typically have greater consequences for vehicle occupants, particularly for speeding and
alcohol related crashes and also for single vehicle run-off road crashes, and especially for young men
(Begg et al. 1999, McKnight and McKnight 2003).
To illustrate, driver error, such as distraction and speeding, was the most common contributor to young
novice driver crashes in the United States between July 2005 and December 2007, and the young
novice driver was at fault in 80 percent of these crashes (Curry et al. 2011). In addition, a review of fatal
crash statistics shows that, among teenage drivers, speeding, alcohol impairment, and low seatbelt use
all play a dominant role in causing crashes and a higher level of fatalities. Statistics from 2004 Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data shows that speeding is cited in 44% of fatalities of the 16 to
19-year-old drivers, which is higher than any other age group. In 2004, 22% of the 16 to 19-year-old
drivers killed had a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher
(NHTSA, 2004). Although seatbelt use is not a contributing factor in the cause of a fatal crash, low
seatbelt use rates clearly contribute to the high level of fatalities associated with teen crashes. McCartt
and Northrup (2004) showed that from 1995-2000 nationwide seatbelt use was lowest among
teenagers (16 to 19 years old) with only 36% among fatally injured teen drivers, and 23% among fatally
injured passengers.
Patil et al. (2006) examined the literature describing risky driving and summarise the behaviours as
driving competitively (e.g., enjoyment of out-manoeuvering other drivers), risk-taking driving (e.g.,
taking driving risks for the thrill of it), high-risk driving (e.g., speeding, improper turning or passing),
driving aggression (e.g., tailgating to punish other drivers, honking angrily, making rude gestures), and
noted that the attitudes and personality characteristics that promote these behaviours are seen by the
American public as serious threats to safety.
Patil et al. (2006) also noted that there is good evidence that personality characteristics such as
aggressiveness, hostility, sensation seeking, normlessness, disinhibition, susceptibility to boredom,
impaired risk perception, and perceived invulnerability, are associated with higher rates of risky driving
behaviours and negative driving outcomes (Mcmillen et al. 1991, Furnham and Saipe 1993, Burns and
Wilde 1995, Jonah 1997, Vavrik 1997, Greene et al. 2000, Iversen and Rundmo 2002, van Beurden et
al. 2005). Furthermore, risky driving behaviour has been closely linked to risky behaviour associated
with non-driving lifestyles and behaviours. Lifestyles reflecting high rates of risky behaviours, thrill- or
risk/sensation-seeking, poor impulse control, and aggression in non-driving contexts predict high-risk
driving and related negative driving outcomes (Beirness and Simpson 1988, Jonah 1997, Alparslan et
al. 1999).
Jacobsohn et al. (2012) argue that, as children enter adolescence, rates of delinquent activity (highspeed driving, for example) increase 10-fold and remain high across the following decade. In addition to
seeking thrills, adolescents are trying to find ways to establish that they are no longer children. With
16
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
conventional means of appearing to be adults unavailable for many teens (e.g., marriage, adult jobs),
risky behaviours are one means of establishing that one is no longer a child. Equally important, the
striving to establish one’s autonomy vis-à-vis parents and to turn increasingly to peers is a fundamental
feature of adolescence across many mammalian species.
A number of studies have examined the adoption of risky driving behaviour of young drivers in New
Zealand. A component of the larger Christchurch Health and Development Study which included
parental interviews, child interviews, psychometric testing, teacher report, and examination of medical,
Police and other records, focused on young driver participants at age 21 years and reflected their
driving experiences for the previous three years (18-21 years) (Fergusson et al. 2003). The findings of
this study showed that more than 90 percent of drivers engaged in some form of risky driving behaviour,
the most common risk-taking behaviours being exceeding the speed limit by at least 20 km/h and
driving within four hours of drinking alcohol. A smaller proportion of the sample reported very high-risk
behaviours, including street racing (11 %) and running red lights (8.3%). Those were most likely to be
involved in risky driving were male, alcohol and cannabis abusers, those involved in criminal offending,
and with high levels of affiliation with deviant peers. A strong association was found between extent of
risky driving behaviour and crash risk. Those who reported seven or more risky driving behaviours had
rates of motor vehicle crashes that were 6.9 times (95% CI: 4.1-11.4) times higher than those who
reported no risky driving. After adjusting for driving exposure (and other driver characteristics), the RR
of high frequency risky behaviour drivers remained at 4.3 times (3.3 times) higher than those who
reported no risky driving
In another New Zealand study, Blows et al. (2005) examined the relationship between risky driving
habits, prior traffic convictions and crash injury using cross-sectional data amongst 21,893 individuals in
NZ, including 8,029 16–24 year olds. The authors note that “risky driving behaviours, such as drink
driving, speeding and non-use of seatbelts, are considered responsible for a significant proportion fatal
crashes”. Other risky driving behaviours such as racing other vehicles for thrills, close following and
illegal passing, have also been associated with increased risk in a number of cohort, case control and
cross-sectional studies (Evans and Wasielewski 1983, Preusser et al. 1991, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention 1994, Rajalin 1994, Begg et al. 1999, Fergusson et al. 2003, Lam et al. 2003)
all cited in Blows et al. (2005). They also noted that several studies have also suggested that people
who report ‘habitual’ risky driving and have a history of convictions are also at increased risk (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention 1994, Rajalin 1994, Fergusson et al. 2003) all cited in Blows et al.
(2005). Blows and colleagues found that those who reported frequently racing a motor vehicle for
excitement or driving at 20 km/h or more over the speed limit, and those who had received traffic
convictions in the previous year, were between two and four times more likely to have been injured
while driving over the same time period. Driving at 20 km/h or more above the speed limits was a
stronger risk factor for younger (<25 years) than older drivers. Unlicensed driving was a risk factor for
older but not younger drivers.
A large-scale longitudinal Victorian-based study, part of the Australian Temperament Project (ATP), has
also provided important evidence on risk factors for high risk driving behaviour (Vassallo et al. 2007).
The ATP is a longitudinal study following the psychosocial development of a large cohort of children
17
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
born in the State of Victoria, Australia, between Sept 1982 and Jan 1983. Participants in the current
study were 1,135 young adults (56% female) who completed survey questions, about their current
driving behaviour and learner driver experiences during the most recent data collection wave, at age
19–20 years. Data collected from parent and teacher surveys in earlier phases of study were also
included. Survey questions included items related to licensing: type of licence held and age licence was
obtained; questions relating to experiences as a learner driver: number of professional driving lessons,
frequency of driving practice and degree of stress and conflict experienced when practising driving; and
items relating to driving experiences since licensure: driving exposure (e.g. weekly hours driving/riding);
crash experiences (e.g. no. crashes when driving, whether alone/with passengers, property damage or
injury/death); and enforcement experiences (e.g. no. speeding offences).
Engagement in risky driving behaviour was assessed by eight items which required participants to
recall the number of occasions during their past 10 driving trips in which they had: (1) driven up to 10
km/h above the limit, (2) driven between 10 and 25 km/h over the limit; (3) driven more than 25 km/h
over the limit; (4) not worn a seatbelt (or helmet) at all; (5) not worn a seatbelt (helmet) for part of the
trip; (6) driven when very tired; (7) driven when affected by alcohol and (8) driven when affected by an
illegal drug.
With regard to ‘risky driving behaviour’, 31 percent had been detected speeding, over 80% reported
speeding by up to 10 km/h at least once during their past 10 trips, and approximately two-thirds
reported that they had driven when very tired on at least one of these occasions. More males than
females reported that during their past 10 trips they had exceeded the speed limit, driven without a
seatbelt and/or driven when affected by alcohol.
More importantly, a few participants (7%) exhibited a consistent pattern of highly unsafe driving.
Vassallo et al. (2007) reported that a variety of concurrent and past factors differentiated this group.
The most consistent and powerful group differences emerged in the domains of temperament style (low
task persistence/orientation), behaviour problems (higher aggression and antisocial behaviour), social
skills (lower cooperation, responsibility and empathy), school (lower school adjustment) and peer
relationships (more frequent affiliation with antisocial peers). The authors concluded that this was a
high risk sub group of YD who have “high aggression or hostility, attentional problems, alcohol and drug
use, a sensation seeking personality style, attitudes favourable to norm-defying behaviours, low
parental supervision, limited parental control of driving, and involvement with peers who misuse drugs
and alcohol”.
Møller and Gregersen (2008) examined the relation between risk-taking behaviour while driving, the
psychosocial function of driving, leisure time activities, car oriented peer group interaction and
educational attainment, drawing on Problem Behaviour Theory (PBT), which distinguishes between
behaviour that is approved of by the general society and problem behaviour that is condemned. A total
of 2,417 drivers aged 18–25 years, who were randomly selected from the Danish Driving Licence
Register, participated in the study. Behaviours used to measure deliberate risk-taking behaviour
capture issues such as driving at high speed, driving with extra motives and disregarding safety
margins. The psychosocial function of driving was measured based on nine questions covering different
18
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
psychosocial functions such as status, freedom, adventure etc. Additionally, questions also addressed
the degree of emotional involvement in driving.
The findings showed a positive significant effect on risk-taking behaviour based on the score on the
psychosocial function of driving (most significant were ‘status’ and ‘blowing off steam’) and a similar
effect for driving related interaction with friends. Low structure/high impulsivity leisure time activities (e.g.
PC-games, body building, partying with friends) were also related to increased risk-taking behaviour.
The authors concluded that results of this study show that the driving behaviour of the young driver is
influenced by motives related to the general life situation of the young driver. This implies that the
young driver not only needs skills for handling the car, reading the traffic etc. in order to drive safely the
young driver also needs skills to handle the influences from motives stemming from his/her general life
situation. The results of this study confirm the need of a differentiated approach based on knowledge of
different subgroups of young drivers.
In another study, Møller (2004) explored the psychosocial function of driving as well as the process
through which a relationship between lifestyle and driving behaviour is established and identified four
psychosocial functions of driving and the organisation of youth life thought to be important for the
adoption of risk-taking behaviour. A lifestyle with few planned activities, few hobbies and meeting with
friends as the centre of activities seems to facilitate the use of the car in a way that leads to risk-taking
behaviour. The results also suggest that the driving behaviour of the young driver is influenced by other
motives than driving safely and that subjective norms regarding driving within the peer group influence
the manner and extent to which these motives are expressed in driving behaviour.
Similarly, Bingham et al. (2006) used PBT as a framework to examine individual characteristics that
predict high-risk driving behaviour amongst a group of young adults (average age 24.4 years) with a
current Michigan drivers licence using a telephone survey. Psychosocial information was collected and
included: i) perceived environment: parental monitoring & permissiveness; ii) personality system:
parent-orientedness, school grades; tolerance of deviance; iii) adolescent problem behaviour: smoking,
marijuana use, alcohol misuse. Driving information and traffic offence history was also collected. The
offense measures were based on ticketed moving violations recorded in the driver records during two
intervals. The first interval was from the participant’s licensure through age 19, and the second was
from age 20 to approximately age 24. The findings showed that, generally, greater exposure was
related to more offences. For men, while adjusting for exposure, lower marks in school and greater
substance use predicted more minor offenses in the first interval. In the second interval, more minor
offenses were predicted by lower marks in school, more substance use, lower parent orientation, and
lower parental permissiveness. For women, more minor offenses in the first interval were predicted by
poorer marks in school, greater tolerance of deviance, and more substance use, and more second
interval offenses were predicted by lower marks in school.
Age also appears to correlate (negatively) with aggressive driving. Relative to older drivers, younger
drivers have higher violation rates (Groeger and Brown 1989), underestimate the risks of various
violations (DeJoy 1992), have a lower level of motivation to comply with traffic laws (Yagil 1998), and
are over-involved in running red lights (Retting and Williams 1996), cited in Shinar and Compton (2004).
19
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Shinar and Compton (2004) also found that aggressive driving is gender- and age-related, and the
presence of passengers was associated with lower rates of aggressive driving. Men and younger
drivers are more aggressive than women and older drivers, and the associations are strongest in the
least frequent and most extreme aggressive driving behaviours: cutting across multiple lanes and
passing on the shoulders. Thus, gender differences are greater for riskier and more aggressive
behaviours than for less risky and less aggressive behaviours. These results are consistent with the
notion that women can be as aggressive as men as long as the aggressive behaviours are relatively
mild (Hyde 1984, Shinar 1998).
Several studies have confirmed that there is a strong association between safety attitudes generally
and risk behaviour in traffic (Parker et al. 1995, Lajunen et al. 1999). Iversen and Rundmo (2002) found
that attitudes towards traffic safety were associated with involvement in risk behaviour, especially
attitudes about rule violations and speeding, as well as other forms of reckless driving. They also found
that younger respondents had a greater tendency to endorse attitudes less conducive to traffic safety
than older respondents did. Ulleberg and Rundmo (2003) found that the attitude dimensions explained
50 percent of the variance in self-reported risk-taking behaviour. In addition, their study showed that
self-reported risk behaviour was a significant predictor of accidents.
Speeding
Speeding contributes to an overwhelming percentage of all fatal crash types among teenagers.
Although speeding is not a unique problem associated only with teenagers, the magnitude of its
involvement for teenagers is unique. It is well established that speeding convictions and crashes
involving speeding are more common among young drivers, particularly males (Williams et al. 1995,
Janke 2003). It is also well-established that the combination of excessive speed, alcohol and
passengers is an important and crucial cause of crash involvement and severity of injury, particularly for
single vehicle run-off-road crashes and especially among young men (Evans 1991, Brorsson et al.
1993, Twisk 1996, Begg et al. 1999, McKnight and McKnight 2000).
Scott-Parker et al. (2012) examined the relationships between previous behaviour, attitudes,
psychosocial characteristics and speeding amongst young Australian drivers. Based on survey
responses of 378 novice drivers, significant predictors of speeding in early probationary licence holders
included gender, car ownership, reward sensitivity, depression, personal attitudes, and Learner
speeding.
McKay et al. (2003) evaluated the effect of parental beliefs and driving behaviours on teen driving
behaviours and crash risk. The goal was to create a model including both teen and parent behaviours
and beliefs that would predict increased crash risk for the teen. Using survey methods, McKay et al.
(2003) evaluated responses of 739 parent and teen pairs, and found a weak association between teens’
and parents’ beliefs and the driving behaviours of teens. The authors noted that while the parent had
some influence on the teen’s beliefs and behaviour, this finding suggests that other effects were also
present, and may outweigh the parent’s influence. The study also found that while there were no strong
predictors of teen crashes, a teen’s perceptions of personal crash risk and self-reported driving
infringements were found to be associated with their risk of crashing.
20
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
In New Zealand, too, an analysis of crash data between 2007 to 2011 (Ministry of Transport NZ 2013)
showed that young drivers aged 15 to 24 years were 2.5 times more likely than older drivers (25 years
and older) to have had speed (driving too fast for conditions) as a major contributing factor.
Clearly, younger drivers up to about age 25 years, in comparison with older drivers, are more likely to
be involved in a fatal crash due to exceeding the speed limit or driving faster for the conditions.
Night driving
Increased crash risk at night is common worldwide. Australian and international data show that young
novice drivers are over-represented in crashes during all hours of the day but especially during evening
and night hours (Maycock 2001, ATSB 2002, Gregersen and Nyberg 2002). It is estimated that the
young novice drivers are three times more likely to crash at night than older drivers (Williams 2001).
More recently, Rice et al. (2004) confirmed the likelihood of causing an injury crash increases with
advancing night-time hours for 16-17 year olds, with 10pm to midnight representing the highest risk.
Further, novice drivers have more severe crashes, a higher injury rate, and higher fatality rate during
night-time driving when compared to more experienced drivers (Williams et al. 1983, Massie et al.
1997, Doherty et al. 1998, Åkerstedt and Kecklund 2001, Rice et al. 2004).
This over-representation is believed to be due to a number of factors in addition to darkness (Corfitsen
1999), fatigue (Connor et al. 2002), and inexperience (Williams 2003), including impoverished visual
information and increased likelihood of alcohol involvement and speeding, and the fact that young
drivers spend proportionally more of their time driving during these hours compared with other (older)
drivers and usually in recreational circumstances and with their same-aged friends as passengers
(Crettenden 1994, Ferguson 2003, Williams 2003, Keall et al. 2004, Clarke et al. 2005). During
recreational driving, even drivers who generally try to follow the road rules can be more easily
distracted or encouraged to take risks.
In New Zealand, too, it is reported that young drivers tend to be disproportionately represented in fatal
crashes at night. For example, between 2009 and 2011, over 50 percent of fatal crashes occurring on
Friday and Saturday nights involved a young driver, whereas only 26 percent of daytime crashes
involved a young driver (Ministry of Transport NZ 2013).
Alcohol use
Alcohol impairs driving performance, with reports showing that up to 40 percent of fatal crashes
worldwide are alcohol-related (Evans 2004, Turner et al. 2011). There is also strong evidence that
younger drivers constitute a higher percentage of alcohol-related crashes than any other age group.
Drivers under 20 years have a five-fold higher average risk of being involved in an alcohol-related crash
compared with drivers over age 30 years (Keall et al. 2004). Due to this over-representation,
considerable research has examined possible causes as well as preventative measures. Much of these
efforts hinge on the assumption that younger drivers are typically at a greater risk because they are
less experienced, both in terms of driving and alcohol use (Evans 2004).
21
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
NHTSA (2008) also reported that drivers aged 16 - 24 years account for 23 percent of all alcoholinvolved fatal crashes who had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 g/dl or higher in 2007.
Moreover, they noted that safety restraints were used by only 34 percent of fatally injured alcoholimpaired drivers, a decline of 6 percent compared with 2006 data. In 3 widely cited studies, ((Hingson
et al. 2001, Hingson et al. 2002, Hingson et al. 2004), cited in Turner et al. 2011) have extrapolated
from national traffic accident reports and college enrolment as a proportion of census data to estimate
alcohol-related traffic deaths among college students nationally: rates ranged from 14.1 to 15.2 deaths
per 100,000.
In their examination of alcohol-involved crashes among teen drivers in the state of Michigan, US,
Bingham et al. (2009) identified a number of factors that increased the likelihood that a teen driver will
have an alcohol-related crash. They found that, while teens are less likely to be involved in alcoholrelated crashes than in other types of crashes, when they did drink and drive teens were more likely
than adults to experience an alcohol-related crash, and that the presence of peer passengers and
speeding contributed most to an increased likelihood that an alcohol-related crash would result in a
casualty. Moreover, they noted that teens experienced a two times greater risk of crashing than adults.
When alcohol is coupled with other conditions, the risk of being involved in an alcohol-related crash
was as much as 18 times greater for male teen drivers and 11 times greater for female teen drivers
compared with adults.
The proportion of alcohol-related fatal crashes in New Zealand decreased from 36% to 29% from 1985
to 2005, but this decline was not evident among adolescents. Of the fatal crashes involving adolescents
in 1980 and 2000, 31% and 33%, respectively, were attributed to drink driving. Furthermore, while the
risk of fatal crash involvement increases with increasing blood alcohol levels in drivers of every age
group, this risk is highest among adolescents. In New Zealand, the risk of fatal injury for drivers aged
15–19 years is more than five times than that for drivers older than 30 years at all blood alcohol levels
(Tin et al. 2008)
Data from Victoria suggests that approximately 36% of all fatal alcohol-related crashes involve drivers
aged 18-25 years, even though they only represent around 13% of licence holders. The majority of
these drivers are in the 21-25 years age bracket (ATC 2011). Young drivers are at greater crash risk
than fully licensed, experienced drivers with the same BAC level (Zador et al. 2000, Keall et al. 2004).
Keall et al. (2004) conducted a case-control study exploring the relationship between driver age and
number of passengers with varying BAC levels in New Zealand, from 1995 to 2000. Data obtained from
roadside RBT sites provided an exposure measure which was matched according to day of the week,
time, and location demographics with driver fatality BAC data obtained from coroners’ reports. Their
model estimated statistically significant higher crash risks for young drivers across all BAC levels
commencing at the 0.02% BAC level. At a low BAC level of 0.02%, young driver (under 20 years) crash
risk was at least five times that of drivers aged 30 years or over with the same BAC level. This risk was
also three times higher for the 20-29 year old drivers.
Research indicates that drinking is associated with risk-taking and sensation-seeking behaviour among
adolescents (Tsai et al. 2008). Alcohol has disinhibiting effects that may increase the likelihood of
22
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
unsafe activities, including risky driving behaviours. In particular, driving under the influence is
frequently coupled to other behaviours that can increase serious crash injury risk (for example, lack of
safety restraint use, speeding, etc.).
Previous research has identified several factors associated with adolescent drink driving including
particular patterns and locations of drinking, other risky road behaviours including nonuse of seatbelts,
and riding with drinking drivers, and the use of other substances including tobacco and drugs (see Tin
et al. (2008) Conversely, supportive relationships with parents, schools and communities have been
shown to reduce the risk of drink driving. Consistent with theories proposed by Bronfenbrenner and
Vygotsky, these findings indicate that ecological and sociocultural factors can serve as important even
if context-specific mediating factors on adolescent risk taking.
An analysis of a subset of survey respondents aged 15 years and older from the New Zealand Youth
Survey showed that 17.3 percent of participants reported drink driving in the previous month. Drink
driving was significantly associated with frequent (at least weekly) alcohol use, binge drinking and
usually drinking away from home, that is in cars, outdoors, at bars or nightclubs, at parties, at school
and at work. Students’ perception that parents and schools care about them, parental monitoring, and
high academic achievement was associated with a reduced risk of drink driving while having friends
who drink alcohol increased this risk. These associations were similar among boys and girls.
Gender
Last, is the issue of gender differences. Predominantly, male drivers have been the targeted group as
they have been traditionally regarded as those who participate in more risky driving and road rage
(Deery 2000), display ‘macho personality’ and more aggressive driving behaviours (Krahé and Fenske
2002), drive at greater speeds and drive in a drunken state (Laapotti and Keskinen 2004). In
comparison, female drivers have typically been regarded as ‘safe’ drivers and less likely to engage in
risky driving behaviours. However, there appears to be an increasing gender equalization between
young female and male adolescent drivers emerging, particularly with regard to drinking and driving,
and associated behaviours.
Studies have investigated the influence of culture, social pressures and competition between the
genders on the increase in aggressive behaviour seen among young women. As women continue to be
encouraged to take on more traditional male roles within cultures and society, young women may also
feel compelled to match their young male counterparts in risk-taking behaviours and aggression
(Bingham et al. 2006, Tsai et al. 2008). Tsai et al. (2008) examined alcohol and restraint use by gender
amongst young drivers and found that alcohol-involved fatal crash rates in young female drivers aged
19 to 24 years have increased. While male drivers continue to surpass women in the number of
alcohol-involved fatal crashes, young womens’ use of alcohol and subsequent involvement in a fatal
crash increased among female drivers aged 19 to 20 years and 20 to 24 years over the period 1995 to
2007.
In addition, other research indicates that women are drinking and driving more often and that the
proportion of female drivers involved in fatal crashes is increasing. U.S. Fatal Accident Reporting
23
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
System data (Fell and Nash 1989) suggest that although overall alcohol involvement rates in fatal
crashes have been declining for the past four years, the rates for females aged 21-24 year olds have
not, and their alcohol involvement rate in late-night single vehicle crashes, a surrogate measure of
alcohol-related crashes, is almost as high as that of male drivers. Popkin (1991) examined the
involvement of North Carolina (NC) female drivers who are less than 35 years of age for the period of
1976 through 1985 and reports on trends in driver licensing, arrests for drinking and driving, singlevehicle night-time and alcohol-related crashes, and measured blood alcohol levels in fatalities. It
identifies an emerging driving-while-impaired problem for younger women, particularly those 21 to 24
years of age.
Peer passengers
There is a strong relationship between the presence of passengers and driving behaviour and crash
involvement. Numerous studies demonstrate that the presence of peer passengers increases the
likelihood of a crash (Chen et al. 2000, Lam et al. 2003), and the risk increases incrementally with each
additional same-aged passenger to around four times the risk with two or more teenage peers
compared with driving alone (Chen et al. 2000, Goodwin et al. 2012). Similar results have been found in
New South Wales, Australia, where the risk of a fatal or serious injury crash increased incrementally
from carriage of 1-2 passengers and from 2-3 or more passengers for all novice drivers under age 25
years irrespective of licence type (Lam et al. 2003). (Lam et al. 2003, Chen et al. (2006)) also examined
vehicle crash surveillance data in 15 US States and demonstrate that, due to the presence of young
teen passengers, more single-vehicle crashes, and the greater likelihood of restraint non-use, teen
drivers and passengers had a greater injury risk in teen night-time crashes than teen daytime crashes.
Further, research clearly shows that a greater proportion of passenger injuries among teenagers occur
when they are travelling in a car driven by a teenager (Doherty et al. 1998, Aldridge et al. 1999, Chen et
al. 2000, Williams 2001). Williams (2001) found that passengers who were peers of the driver placed
themselves at an increasingly elevated crash risk with every additional passenger.
There are several reasons why the presence of peer passengers might increase crash and injury risk.
Passengers can provide additional distractions to the driver, increasing their cognitive load and
reducing their ability to attention share with important driving tasks. Peer passengers, especially for
young novice drivers, can sometimes encourage drivers to engage in more intentional risky and antisocial driving such as driving faster and driving with shorter following distances, (Regan and
Mitsopoulos 2001, Young et al. 2007). Attitudes of others can contribute to the likelihood of engaging in
risk behaviour. Teenagers who socialise with others who display risky behaviours are more likely to
engage in that type of behaviour (Sarkar and Andreas 2004) .Young drivers are intensely social, highly
susceptible to peer pressure and easily distracted.
In a naturalistic study of 52 teenage drivers using in-vehicle cameras, Goodwin et al. (2012) found risky
driving behaviours were indeed more common in the presence of passengers. For example, drivers
carrying multiple teenage peers were three times as likely as those with no passengers to engage in
one or more potentially risky behaviours such as speeding, following too closely, or goofing/showing off
with the vehicle. However, passengers encouraged the driver to take risks in only 1 percent of the video
24
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
clips when passengers were present. This suggests the mere presence of peers may have been the
more important influence on risky driving behaviours than passengers actively encouraging the driver to
take risks (Goodwin et al. 2012). However, it is also plausible that “riskier” drivers are more likely to
carry multiple peers.
Somewhat different findings were obtained in another recent study also involving instrumented
vehicles. Simons-Morton et al. (2011) equipped the vehicles of 42 newly licensed teenage drivers with
recording systems that monitored driving performance and vehicle occupants. Teens engaged in less
risky driving – defined as g-force events high enough to make the passengers uncomfortable – when
carrying teenage passengers. However, having friends who tend to be risky (i.e., who smoke, drink
alcohol, use marijuana, do not use seat belts, etc.) was associated with rougher driving as well as crash
/near crash incidents. The authors conjectured that injunctive norms – the perceived expectations of
others – may play a key role in teenage driving risk (Simons-Morton et al. 2011).
Most recently, Goodwin et al. (2012) examined distracted driver behaviours and potentially distracting
conditions among young, beginning drivers. The findings showed that the presence of teenage peers –
especially multiple peers – sometimes resulted in horseplay and loud conversation in the vehicle. Both
horseplay and loud conversation were particularly common after 9 p.m. on weekends, a time when
much of teen driving may be “recreational.” By contrast, carrying parents – and to a lesser degree
siblings – was associated with a substantially lower likelihood of horseplay and loud conversation.
Potentially distracting conditions in the vehicle such as horseplay went hand-in-hand with serious
incidents and high g-forces. However, causality cannot be inferred. Carrying multiple passengers may
have caused these incidents, but it is also possible that riskier drivers are simply more likely to carry
multiple, rowdy passengers. Finally, electronic device use and other distracted driver behaviours were
strongly associated with looking away from the roadway, although electronic device use was only
weakly related to serious incidents.
25
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
3
CURRENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES ADDRESSING
YOUNG OFFENDERS AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
The findings of the review of initiatives addressing young offenders are presented in this chapter. First,
an outline of the Youth Justice System is provided, followed by a discussion of interventions, focussing
on those that show promise in their ability to manage young offenders. Second, a discussion of young
driver offender programs, specifically is provided. Following this is a discussion of the more specific
aspects of programs and interventions that don’t work and those that appear to work.
3.1
THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM
The youth justice system is the set of processes and practices for managing children and young people
who have committed, or allegedly committed, an offence. The traditional idea behind the function of
juvenile courts was that children in trouble with the law should be helped rather than punished.
Separate courts, detention facilities, rules, procedures, and laws were created for juveniles that are
different from those for adults with the intent to protect their welfare and rehabilitate them, while
protecting public safety.
There are many reasons to prevent youth from becoming delinquents or from continuing to engage in
delinquent behaviour. Clearly, delinquency puts a youth at risk for a range of other harmful behaviours
and activities such as drug use and dependency, school drop-out, incarceration, injury, early pregnancy,
and adult criminality. In addition, most adult criminals begin their criminal careers as juveniles.
Preventing delinquency prevents the onset of adult criminal careers and thus reduces the burden of
crime on its victims and on society. There is significant continuity between offending in one age range
and offending in another. For example, 73 percent of males convicted in a study in Cambridge as
juveniles between the ages of 10 to 16 years were reconvicted between ages 17 and 24 years, in
comparison with only 16 percent of those not convicted as juveniles. Nearly half (45%) of the juvenile
offenders were reconvicted between ages 25 and 32 years, in comparison with only 8 percent of those
not convicted as juveniles (Krohn et al. , Stattin and Magnusson 1991); both cited in (Farrington 2003)).
Effective interventions with juveniles should therefore affect later offending rates in adulthood (Genovés
et al. 2006).
Importantly, the cost to the community of arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating, and treating offenders
runs into billions of dollars every year (Greenwood 2008).
Most youth justice systems are couched within a number of principles and guidelines, including the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the United Nations Guidelines for
the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines). These assert that “youthful behaviour
or conduct that does not conform to overall social norms and values is often part of the maturation and
growth process and tends to disappear spontaneously in most individuals with the transition to
adulthood”; a great majority of young people commit some kind of petty offence at some point during
their adolescence without this turning into a criminal career in the long term.” While delinquency is a
26
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
common characteristic of the period and process of becoming an adult, it is very important to note that
juveniles often create stable criminal groups with a corresponding subculture and start to engage in the
activities of adult criminal groups, in effect choosing delinquent careers.
It has been noted that the juvenile justice system has many challenges as it attempts to do justice and
rehabilitation at the same time, without the policies, resources or programs enabling it to do either
adequately (Barton 2000). Juveniles who have been charged with serious and violent offences (e.g.,
murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) are usually managed through detention and supervision,
boot-camp programs, community programs and sometimes transfer to the adult judicial system. Other
less serious offences, such as theft, property damage, truancy, vandalism, etc. are considered
‘antisocial behaviour’ and they make up the majority of cases in the juvenile court system. Importantly,
the evidence suggests that the majority of programs for serious and violent young offenders are not
effective or appropriate for these groups. Lipsey and Wilson (1998) showed that the most effective
programs for serious and violent offenders involved interpersonal skills training, cognitive-behaviour
treatment, or teaching family home programs.
3.1.1
The Youth Justice System in Australia
On average, in 2012–13 in Australia, there were around 6,300 young people aged 10 years and older
managed through youth justice supervision due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime.
This equates to a rate of 23.8 per 10,000, or about 1 in 420 young persons aged 10-17 years (AIHW
2014). The rate of young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day was lowest in
Victoria, at 16.1 per 10,000.
In Australia, the State and Territory governments are responsible for dealing with children and young
people who are involved in crime. In all states and territories, children and young people aged 10 and
older (up to 17 years of age) can be charged with a criminal offence, however, a key principle of the
Australian youth justice system is that young people should be detained only as a last resort. This is
consistent with the UNCRC, which states that children should be deprived of liberty for the shortest
appropriate period of time. It is also consistent with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice ('The Beijing Rules'). This principle is legislated in each state and
territory.
State and territory legislation also allows young people to be diverted away from further involvement in
the youth justice system when appropriate. They may be diverted from the youth justice system
altogether (such as an informal warning by police); referred to services outside the system (such as
drug and alcohol treatment); or diverted from continued contact with the system by police or courts
(such as conferencing).
3.1.1.1
Pathways through the system
Young people first enter the youth justice system when they are investigated by police for allegedly
committing a crime. Legal action taken by police may include court actions (the laying of charges to be
answered in court) and non-court actions (such as cautions, conferencing, counselling or infringement
notices). Courts may decide to dismiss the charge, divert a young person from further involvement in
27
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
the system, or transfer them to specialist courts or programs. If the matter proceeds and the charge is
proven, the court may hand down any of a number of orders, either supervised or unsupervised. One
major aspect of youth justice is therefore the supervision of young people, both in their communities
and in secure detention facilities. Young people may be supervised when they are unsentenced – that
is, when they have been charged with an offence and are awaiting the outcome of their court matter, or
when they have been found or pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. They may also be
sentenced to a period of supervision if they are proven guilty in a court. The majority of young people
have been placed on supervision after the finalisation of their matter.
A summary of the range of possible pathways through the Australian youth justice system is provided in
Figure 3-1. The stages that require a young person to be supervised by youth justice agencies and are
included in the Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set (JJNMDS) are shaded. These stages are
the focus of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's reporting series on youth justice supervision.
Notes:
1. Shaded objects indicate youth justice agency involvement. These areas of the youth justice system are within the scope of the JJ NMDS,
and are the focus of the AIHW's report series on youth justice supervision.
2. This diagram is an indicative summary and is not intended to reflect all possible pathways.
Source: (AIHW 2014)
Figure 3-1 Overview of the youth justice system in Australia (Source: (AIHW 2014))
28
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
In Victoria, the Department of Human Services is responsible for the statutory supervision of young
people in the criminal justice system. The Department provides programs and resources to assist these
young people to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes to manage their lives effectively without
further offending. Through supervision, offending related programs and linkages to appropriate support
services, the department promotes opportunities for rehabilitation and contributes to the reduction of
crime in the community.
Overall, the Youth Justice Service objectives are to:
3.2

where appropriate, support diversion of young people charged with an offence from the criminal
justice system;

minimise the likelihood of reoffending and further progression into the criminal justice system
through supervision that challenges offending behaviours and related attitudes and promotes
pro-social behaviours;

work with other services to strengthen community-based options for young people enabling an
integrated approach to the provision of support that extends beyond the court order; and,

engender public support and confidence in the Youth Justice service.
YOUNG OFFENDER INTERVENTIONS
It has been noted that the juvenile justice system has many challenges as it attempts to do justice and
rehabilitation at the same time, without the policies, resources or programs enabling it to do either
adequately (Barton 2000). Juveniles who have been charged with serious and violent offences (e.g.,
murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) are usually managed through detention and supervision,
boot-camp programs, community programs and sometimes transfer to the adult judicial system. Other
less serious offences, such as theft, truancy, vandalism, unlicensed driving, etc., are considered
‘antisocial behaviour’ and they make up the majority of cases in the juvenile court system. Management
of this group is generally through school-, community-, and family-based programs.
Measuring the effects of programs aimed to prevent delinquency is challenging because the behaviours
the programs attempt to change are often covert and therefore difficult to identify. Another limiting factor
is that there are clear multiple risk factors, and interactions between factors involved in the
development of child delinquency, and these complexities pose important challenges for implementing
interventions (Farrington 1994) cited in Loeber et al. (2003). Moreover, the full benefits of rehabilitation
programs extend over long periods of time.
Other considerations that can limit progress in identifying successful program strategies are weak
designs found in most program evaluations. The “gold standard” for evaluations in the social sciences –
experiments that compare the effects on youths who have been assigned randomly to alternative
interventions- are rarely used in criminal justice settings. Although such rigorous designs, along with
long-term follow-up, are required to accurately assess the lasting effect of an intervention, they are far
29
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
too expensive for most local agencies or even most state governments to conduct. Only rarely do
juvenile intervention programs themselves measure their outcomes, and the few evaluations that are
carried out do not usually produce reliable findings. Statistically rigorous evaluations are therefore rare
and not always applied to the most promising programs (Greenwood 2008).
Further, given the multi-faceted nature of child delinquency, including antisocial behaviour, learning
difficulties, mood problems, and exposure to aggression, abuse and neglect, prevention and
rehabilitation management strategies are necessarily multi-disciplinary and effective interventions
require the services and resources from a wide range of sectors. Practitioners almost unanimously
agree that more coordination among the juvenile justice system, schools, child welfare agencies,
mental health agencies and educational support services is needed to deal with very young offenders
(Farrington et al. 2001). However, such integrated programs are extremely rare, and their effectiveness
remains to be evaluated.
One of the most extensive US-based projects aimed to identify evidence-based prevention and
intervention programs that are effective in reducing antisocial behaviour and promoting a healthy
course of youth development is the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development (Center for the Study
and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado Boulder). The website provides detailed information
on all identified program evaluations (http://www.blueprintsprograms.com). This resource and other
publications were sourced to review the effectiveness of youth offender programs.
3.2.1
What doesn’t work
In practice, many prevention approaches have proved ineffective in managing youth offenders (Stevens
et al. 2006).
First, the overwhelming evidence shows that incarceration of and treatment in correctional settings for
serious juvenile delinquents (allowing for restrictions and control over behaviour) is ineffective in
reducing recidivism or the prevention of later serious and violent offending. Placement together with
deviant peers may have negative effects that outweigh any treatment gains and may lead to adverse
outcomes for many youths (Dishion et al. 1995). In addition, victimization by older, serious delinquent
offenders in correctional facilities may fuel criminal propensities in child delinquents.
Likewise, legal sanctions have little effect on addressing young offenders.
There are some interventions that aim to shock or frighten potential offenders and the evidence
suggests that these are also ineffective in reducing recurrent offences. These include visits to prisons,
‘Scared Straight’ programs and boot camps. Indeed, a few scare-oriented programs, especially those
that place groups of delinquent youth together for extended treatment, have actually worsened the
behaviour of participants (World Youth Report 2003).
Experience shows that efforts to fight gang membership are the most ineffective. Several techniques for
transforming the gang environment have been suggested, but they tend to deal only with the criminal
aspect of the problem, while the socio-economic and other conditions and circumstances that compel
30
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
juveniles to enter a gang remain forgotten; further, traditional social institutions are rarely engaged in
the process (World Youth Report 2003).
3.2.2
What does work
Several promising approaches have been used to tackle the problem of youth offences and antisocial
behaviour, varying from residential treatment and a variety of treatments under open care conditions
such as multi-systemic therapy (MST) (Henggeler 1996) with a strong focus on the family in its social
context, and Functional Familiy Therapy (FFT) (Sexton 1999) with more focus on the functioning of the
family itself. Although home-based treatments like MST (Littell 2005) and FFT may appear to be more
effective than residential treatments (Lipsey et al. 2001) it is sometimes necessary to place the youth in
a residential setting out of home.
Stevens et al. (2006) suggests that there are promising community-based approaches at primary,
secondary and tertiary levels of the prevention of youth crime and restorative justice and include those
at school, within the community, and family-oriented programs. The evidence shows that communityand family-based treatment is effective in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders (Lipsey and
Wilson 1998, Lipsey 1999). It should also be noted that, while not all interventions work equally well,
they tend to work best when they are targeted and respond to the specific needs of the individual
juvenile and the behaviours (Lipsey and Wilson 1998, Dowden and Andrews 2000, Hoge 2001).
3.2.2.1
School-based programs
Numerous school- or classroom-based programs have proven effective in preventing drug use,
delinquency, anti-social behaviour, and early school drop-out, all behaviours that can lead to criminal
behaviour. The programs vary widely in their goals, although they share some common themes:
collaborative planning and problem-solving involving teachers, parents, students, community members,
and administrators; grouping of students into small self-contained clusters; career education; integrated
curriculum; and student involvement in rule-setting and enforcement, and various strategies to reduce
drop-out (Greenwood 2008).
3.2.2.2
Community-based programs
Delinquency-prevention programs in community settings can be created for various purposes such as
diverting youth out of the juvenile justice system, serving youth placed on informal or formal probation,
or serving youth on parole who are returning to the community after a residential placement. Settings
can range from individual homes, to schools, to teen centres, to parks, to the special facilities of private
providers. They can involve anything from a one-hour monthly meeting to intensive family therapy and
services.
Further, the literature suggests that, to be most effective, it is important that the treatment is conducted
in the environments where social behaviours naturally occur, i.e. within the home or community
environment. Thus, it is uncertain whether any sustainable treatment effects can be obtained in a
context or unfamiliar environment in which the person has been placed against his or her will and
where there are very limited contacts with his or her usual environment.
31
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Much of the literature assessing the effectiveness of community-based programs focuses on
interventions based on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and the overwhelming evidence shows
that these treatment approaches are the best approaches for antisocial youth and result in positive
outcomes to prevent or reduce antisocial behaviour (Izzo and Ross 1990, Dowden and Andrews 2000,
Lipsey et al. 2001, Landenberger and Lipsey 2005, Genovés et al. 2006, Armelius and Andreassen
2007).
CBT consists of a variety of interventions designed to change cognitions and behaviour. The basic idea
in CBT is that thoughts, images, beliefs and attitudes are intimately related to how we behave.
Therefore, it is necessary to direct interventions both to cognitive and behavioural aspects of the
criminal behaviour. Usually, in the most promising interventions, several different techniques, such as
social skills training, moral reasoning, aggression management, etc., are combined to form a
comprehensive treatment program, addressing several of the factors that contribute to antisocial
behaviour.
Wilson et al. (2005) examined 20 studies of group-oriented CBT programs for juvenile offenders,
including Moral Reconation Therapy and Reasoning and Rehabilitation. They concluded that
representative CBT programmes reduced re-offending by 20 to 30 percent compared to control groups.
In addition, Pearson et al. (2002) reviewed 69 research studies of behavioural (e.g. contingency
contracting, token economy) and CBT programmes. CBT programmes were more effective than the
behavioural ones in reducing re-offending, with a mean reduction in recidivism of about 30 percent for
treated groups.
Although these reviews provide strong indication of the effectiveness of CBT, they cover a range of
offender types, treatments, outcome variables, and quality of study design (Landenberger and Lipsey
2005). In a more circumscribed analysis, (Lipsey et al. 2001) looked at 14 experimental and quasiexperimental studies focusing on cognitive change as the defining characteristic of CBT. They
considered effects for general offender samples, and used recidivism information as the treatment
outcome. The results showed that the probability of recidivism for offenders receiving CBT was only
about half (55%) that for offenders in control groups. In a later study, Landenberger and Lipsey (2005)
analysed 14 randomised experiments and found that the mean recidivism rate for treatment groups was
27 percent lower than for control groups.
Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) analysis confirmed the findings of the positive effects of CBT on
recidivism. Offenders in the treatment group were 1.53 times less likely to re-offend in the 12 months
after treatment than those in the control group. A mean re-offending rate of 0.30 for the treatment group
represented a 25 percent decrease on the 0.40 mean rate for the control group. In addition, variables
characterising subject samples (minority, recidivism risk rating), the amount and implementation of CBT
(session, hours per week, total treatment hours) and the CBT treatment elements (e.g. cognitive
restructuring, anger control) were significantly correlated with effect sizes for recidivism outcomes.
Further, moderator variables with the strongest independent relationships to effect size were (a) the risk
level of participating offenders, (b) how well the treatment was implemented, and (c) the presence or
absence of a few treatment elements including anger control and interpersonal problem-solving
32
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
components in the treatment programme was associated with larger effects, while including victim
impact and behaviour modification was associated with smaller effects (Landenberger and Lipsey
2005).
Similarly, others have found that programs that aim to change antisocial behaviour should focus on the
quality of the treatment implementation and the risk level of the juveniles (Landenberger and Lipsey
2005, Andrews and Dowden 2006), the known predictors of antisocial behaviour (thinking, antisocial
attitudes and values, and social context) (Dowden and Andrews 2000, Cameron and Telfer 2004,
Armelius and Andreassen 2007).
3.2.2.3
Family-oriented programs
The family, as the primary institution of socialization, appears to play the most important role in the
prevention of child and juvenile delinquency. The most successful programs are those that emphasize
family interactions and parental management training, probably because they focus on providing skills
to the adults who are in the best position to supervise and train the child.
As examples, for youth on probation, two effective approaches are family-based interventions:
Functional Family Therapy and Multisystemic Therapy (Greenwood 2008).. Functional Family Therapy
(FFT) targets youth aged eleven to eighteen facing problems with delinquency, substance abuse, or
violence. The program focuses on altering interactions between family members and seeks to improve
the functioning of the family unit by increasing family problem-solving skills, enhancing emotional
connections, and strengthening parents’ ability to provide appropriate structure, guidance, and limits for
their children. It is a relatively short-term program that is delivered by individual therapists, usually in the
home setting. Each team of four to eight therapists works under the direct supervision and monitoring of
several more experienced therapist/trainers. The effectiveness of the program has been demonstrated
for a wide range of problem youth in numerous trials over the past twenty-five years, using different
types of therapists, ranging from paraprofessionals to trainees, in a variety of social work and
counselling professions. The program is well documented and readily transportable (Greenwood 2008).
3.2.3
Characteristics of effective youth offender programs
In her survey of CBT group-based programmes, Polaschek (2011)developed a conceptual framework
with three levels, based primarily around level of offender risk and programme intensity:
1. Basic-level programmes (low to medium risk, low intensity).
2. Mid-level multi-factorial programmes (medium to high risk and intensity).
3. High level comprehensive forensic therapy programmes (very high risk).
The most successful basic-level programmes (targeting low to medium risk offenders) usually involve
brief intervention (from 40 to 70 hours) with a closed group, with the cohort moving through sessions
and modules together in a fixed order. Time constraints mean these programmes target a relatively
narrow range of dynamic risk factors and have fewer intervention components. They tend to be more
theoretically coherent if they specialise e.g. in cognitive and self-regulatory skills. Interventions are
33
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
usually quite structured, and based on a manual to support the facilitator’s more limited training.
Delivery style and methods tend to be psycho-educational, and integrity monitoring may involve
screening DVDs to check adherence to the manual. Basic-level programmes typically assume some
readiness to change, and are not suited to clients who display more ambivalence, learning difficulties or
personality issues.
The most successful mid-level multi-factorial treatment programmes target medium to high risk
offenders at medium to high intensity (100 to 300 hours). They target multiple dynamic risk factors,
include an array of intervention components, and use a range of learning processes to achieve client
change. They usually involve a closed programme with clients working through a sequence of
interventions together. Some may follow a more open format focused more directly on the individual.
Manuals tend to be less prescriptive, with explicit emphasis on balancing content and process.
Facilitators are more qualified and trained in psychological principles, CBT and administering the
programme. The longer time means the content can be more complex, facilitators can use more group
processes to promote learning and there are more opportunities for members to help others change,
with more time for homework review and skills practice. Responses to readiness difficulties will vary,
but could include pre-programme individual motivational treatment or preparatory groups. Despite such
preparation, readiness difficulties may continue. For more challenging or high risk groups (e.g. high
PCL scores) it may be better to incorporate motivational enhancement methods into treatment itself.
The current FOCUS programme is close to the classification of a mid-level programme.
The most successful high-level comprehensive forensic therapy programmes target very high-risk
offenders, or those at high risk for interpersonal crimes (including PCL-psychopaths and personality
disordered clients). Such programmes have the same dosage as mid-level programmes, and are
embedded in a fully therapeutic environment or setting. They are expensive and resource-intensive with
interventions conducted in purpose-built facilities, with highly trained therapeutic staff working with the
same few offenders.
Lipsey (2009), (cited in Ludbrook et al. (2012) reviewed research on delinquency programmes to
identify i) principles of effective programmes and ii) intervention types associated with the greatest
reductions in recidivism. He based his analysis on 548 independent study samples and 361 primary
research reports from 1958 to 2002. All programs covered juveniles aged 12 to 21 receiving
intervention(s) targeting their delinquency. He analysed various moderator variables and compared the
seven different therapeutic intervention philosophies set out below, clustering different types of
interventions within each philosophy:
a.
Skills building (e.g. CBT therapy, social skills training, behavioural programmes,
challenge programmes, academic and job related interventions)
b.
Counselling and its variants (e.g. individual, mentoring, family counselling, group
counselling, peer programmes, mixed)
c.
Restorative programmes (e.g. restitution, mediation)
34
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
d.
Multiple coordinated services (e.g. case management, service broker, multimodal
regimen)
e.
Surveillance (e.g. attempting to inhibit reoffending via close monitoring)
f.
Deterrence (e.g. Scared Straight programmes)
g.
Discipline (e.g. boot camp or military programmes).
Lipsey found little relationship between the effectiveness of interventions and the level of juvenile
justice supervision i.e. whether youth were on diversion, under probation supervision, or incarcerated.
The level of supervision had no significant influence on later recidivism. This suggests that effective
treatment is not highly context dependent. Good programmes can be effective when run in institutional
environments with more potential for adverse effects (e.g. greater exposure to antisocial peers). Three
principles emerged as the major correlates of programme effectiveness:

A therapeutic intervention philosophy

Characteristics of the juvenile sample (i.e. high risk offenders)

The quality of implementation.
As noted in Table 3-1, the most effective interventions embodied therapeutic philosophies such as
counselling, skills training, multiple co-ordinated services and restorative interventions with mean
recidivism reductions of 10 to 13%. The largest mean effective size was for CBT (26%), followed by
behavioural interventions (22%), group counselling (22%) mentoring (21%) and case management
(20%). In contrast, interventions based on strategies of control or coercion – surveillance (monitoring),
deterrence (scared straight), and discipline (boot camps) – achieved negligible or negative effects).
Borum (2003) also noted that many community-based treatments for juvenile delinquents reduced
delinquency by about 10 percent, the most successful programs typically show reductions in the range
of 20 to 30 percent.
In support of these findings, other evidence suggest that ‘Interpersonal Skills’ and ‘Behavioural
Programmes’ show positive and consistent effects (Lipsey et al. 2000, Newman et al. 2012). Izzo and
Ross (1990) found that interventions based on some theoretical principle or model were, on average, 5
times more effective in reducing recidivism than those that did not, although no particular theory
showed significantly better effects than any other. In addition, interventions that included a cognitive
component (problem solving, negotiation and interpersonal skills training, rational emotive therapy, role
playing and modelling, and cognitive behaviour modification) were more than twice as effective as
those that did not.
35
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Table 3-1 Recidivism effect sizes for different types of interventions within each treatment philosophy
Source: Adapted from (Lipsey 2009) cited in Ludbrook et al. (2012)
In addition to the benefits associated with established theoretical approaches, the majority of literature
assessing the principles underlying correctional rehabilitation (Andrews and Bonta 2010) support the
use of risk, needs, and responsivity (RNR) principles to identify:

who might best benefit from intensive treatment programmes

what offender needs should be addressed, and

how we should best intervene.
These principles are described briefly below.
a) The risk principle: According to Andrews et al. (1990) treatment for delinquent behaviour is most
effective when the juveniles to whom that treatment is administered have appreciable risk of actually
reoffending. The risk principle has two aspects: (1) criminal behaviour can be predicted and (2)
offenders should be provided with services commensurate with their identified risk for reoffending
(Andrews and Bonta 2010). Lowenkamp and Latessa (2004) examined reviews relating to youth which
showed that adherence to the risk principle can affect a programme’s effectiveness. More intensive
correctional interventions are more effective when delivered to youth at higher risk of engaging in a
lifetime of crime, while lower risk offenders should be directed into lower intensity interventions.
36
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
b) The need principle: The need principle distinguishes between criminogenic and non-criminogenic
needs. Criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors (or a subset of an offenders’ risk level) which are
associated with changes in the probability of recidivism when targeted by good interventions. Procriminal attitudes and self-regulation deficits would make appropriate targets for interventions because
these needs have been shown to be linked to re-offending. Non-criminogenic needs are factors that are
weakly (or not) associated with recidivism. For example, self-esteem and non-specific mental health
issues would not serve as good targets, because they have not been shown to be consistently linked
with offending (Andrews and Bonta 2010)
c) The responsivity principle: The responsivity principle tells us how best to intervene. It suggests
that the style and mode of intervention should be matched to the learning styles of young offenders.
The skills of treatment providers should be adequate for intervening with youth and to deliver the type
of programme offered. Andrews and Bonta (2010) differentiate between general responsivity and
specific responsivity.
In addition to adopting the most successful theories and approaches, it is important to ensure that
implementation, follow up and monitoring of progress are continually reassessed.
At both a programmatic and at a case level, the implementation and follow up of a proposed
intervention is where many failures occur. Even the best evidence-based programs will not be effective
if they are not properly implemented and monitored. Indeed, Lipsey’s meta-analyses (1995),(1999)
(cited in Borum (2003) showed that program success was strongly related to whether the intervention
was fully implemented and whether its fidelity was strictly monitored.
Kerns and Prinz (2002) (cited in Stevens et al. (2006) provide several recommendations for the
effective implementation of interventions. These include:

Programmes should avoid stigmatising participants. This can be done, for example, by issuing
general invitations to participate, then focusing recruitment efforts on risk groups, rather than
publicly targeting these groups.

Programmes should recognise the effect of environment and address poverty and “other
factors of adversity”.

Recruitment and retention of the targeted participants can be improved by:
o recruiting people at the places where they usually are, in the languages they
understand.
o enabling young people to build positive, stable relationships with caring and committed
adults.
o enabling parents who may be illiterate to provide informed consent without having to
admit that they cannot read.
o employing culturally competent staff who reflect the ethnic mix of target population
37
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program

Programmes should be matched to the developmental stage of targeted children (this can be
helped by involving them in setting goals and choosing methods).

Avoid applying programmes that were designed for older children to younger children without
adaptation.

Ensure programme integrity, which can be done by thorough use of manuals (with a focus on
overcoming practitioner resistance)

Recruit and retain high quality staff by:
o providing training and supervision.
o offering a finders fee to existing staff and volunteers.
o providing administrative support.
o good coordination between staff.
McCulloch and McMurran (2007) surveyed 32 offender programme trainers (deemed experts) to
identify the features of a good offender treatment programme manual. Features included: a
comprehensive account of the programme theory, clearly stated aims and objectives, detailed
instructions, advice on delivery, examples and choices, a readable presentation, jargon-free language,
and a user-friendly format for materials.
Gatti et al. (2005) offer some additional recommendations, based on good-practice evidence, as follows:

The heterogeneity of the juvenile population (age, gender, nationality, religion, ethnicity,
sexuality, etc.) should be acknowledged in planning interventions;

Potential partners and stakeholders (including members of target groups and their families)
should be identified and involved early in the development of plans;

Use a combination of methods. Multi-modal programmes tend to work better than programmes
which use only one type of service;

Target interventions on criminogenic need; i.e. factors which have been demonstrated to
operate as risk or protective factors for juvenile offending;

These factors operate at several levels; individual, family, community, school, economic. All
levels can be used as levers to reduce youth offending. Focusing only on the individual level is
unlikely to lead to sustained reductions in crime, as juvenile offenders quickly grow up and are
replaced by a new generation;

Use programmes which are adequately adapted to the age and stage of adolescent
development of the participants;
38
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
3.3

Recognise that punishment by the criminal justice system is not beneficial for the juvenile, or for
their prospects of avoiding future offending;

Avoid measures which bring delinquent youths together in the absence of pro-social peers and
purposeful activity;

Important factors are the professionalism, motivation, independence and knowledge of those
practitioners. Ongoing training should be provided for key workers;

Recruit and retain workers who have the professional skills and personal qualities to engage
young people and to help them reach their goals;

Adapt effective programmes which have been developed elsewhere to the cultural and local
context;

Boost programme integrity through the use of programme manuals and supportive professional
supervision;

Develop the use of diversion, therapeutic alternatives to imprisonment and restorative justice;
and,

Evaluate programmes in order to manage them better and to build the evidence base of
effective practice.
MANAGING THE SAFETY OF YOUNG DRIVERS
In addition to a review of the literature to understand the issues surrounding young offenders generally
and management of offences through the youth justice system, a more specific review of programs to
manage the safety of young drivers was undertaken, with a focus on offender and rehabilitation
programs. While it is understood that the DTL program focusses on youth who are most likely under the
legal age of being able to drive independently, it is important to understand the effectiveness of young
driver programs to determine if good practice principles of these programs can be applied to younger
offenders.
Over the last three or four decades, there have been many initiatives suggested and implemented
internationally and in Australasia to address the over-representation of young novice drivers in casualty
crashes.
Traditional measures predominantly have relied upon education and have had limited success in
regulating the risky driving behaviour of the young novice driver. For Learner drivers, basic vehiclehandling skills training is important and effective in learning to operate a vehicle in traffic, in passing
practical driving tests, and in preventing crashes during the Learner period. However, repeated reviews
of the effectiveness of traditional vehicle-handling and control training programs show few benefits for
either Learner or Provisional drivers in terms of crash and injury reductions. In fact, in some cases,
39
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
training can be counterproductive resulting in inflated confidence in their ability to cope with driving in
hazardous situations and risk-taking without sufficient improvement of actual skills, such that traffic
violations and crash involvement increase. In contrast, more promising results have been found for
training of higher-order skills, namely, attitudinal-motivational and cognitive-perceptual skills and
insight-based training (e.g.,(Gregersen 1996, Nyberg and Engström 1999, Senserrick and Swinburne
2001, Washington et al. 2011). It is clear that there are many perceptual and cognitive skills, acquired
through experience, and amenable to training, which are necessary for safe driving. Evaluations of CDROM packages to train hazard perception and other higher-order cognitive-perceptual skills have
shown positive results; namely that Learners can be better trained in such skills, which are known to
play a large role in young driver crashes, without inflating confidence in driving ability (Regan et al.
2000, Fisher et al. 2002).
More recently, the implementation and subsequent reform of Graduated Driver Licensing Systems
(GDLS) has been a popular approach and appears to have been effective in addressing the young
driver problem. The primary aim of GDLS models is to reduce the inflated crash and injury risk of young
novice drivers by allowing driving only in low-risk circumstances when first driving and gradually
increasing exposure to higher-risk conditions based on increasing experience and maturity. Restrictions
in GDLS programs appear to have had a major and successful impact in reducing your driver crashes
and associated injuries to themselves and others, during the learner and intermediate stages of
licensure with many demonstrations of success, albeit to varying degrees (Shope et al. 2001, Foss and
Goodwin 2003), cited in Simons-Morton et al. (2006);(Williams et al. 2012). The evaluations of GDLS in
many countries have shown that if experience is gained under supervision and under safe
circumstances, the crash involvement after licensing is reduced compared with gaining the experience
alone. These conclusions apply to night-time restrictions, restrictions on BAC levels, and passenger
restrictions. Furthermore, it appears that these systems enjoy wide public support, especially amongst
parents of teen drivers (Simons-Morton et al. 2006).
In addition, Police enforcement of safe driving practices, improved road design and operation
(particularly measures aimed to reduce speeding and barrier systems to reduce injuries in singlevehicle run-off-road crashes), and improvements in vehicle safety (advanced crash avoidance and
occupant protection) as well as parental involvement, promotion of eco-driving, and the use of
telematics (in conjunction with insurance incentives) all show promise to varying degrees.
For more persistent drivers who continue to engage in high risk driving, legislation and enforcement
systems are recognised as effective means to curb illegal driving behaviours, particularly amongst
young drivers. Legislation allowing for the testing and penalising of drivers who are apprehended
engaging in high risk driving behaviours has been in operation across Australia for many years. For
example, in Victoria, anti-hooning legislation has been enforced since 2006 targeting intentional high
risk driving behaviours.
The laws give police the power to impound, immobilise or destroy vehicles driven by people in a
dangerous manner. These laws were amended in 2011, providing police with additional powers
including the ability to impound vehicles for up to 30 days, undertake road worthiness inspections and
40
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
issue defect notices to impounded vehicles and stipulate the conditions of use of the vehicle following
impoundment.
The following offences are covered under the ‘hoon’ driving legislation:

Repeat drink driving with a BAC of 0.10 or higher;

Repeat driving under the influence of drugs offences;

Repeat unlicensed driving;

Repeat driving while suspended or disqualified;

‘Improper use’ of a vehicle by intentionally making one or more wheel lose traction;

Dangerous driving, careless driving, failure to have proper control or causing unnecessary
smoke or noise involving ‘improper use’;

Speeding or dangerous driving at 45km/h or more over the speed limit or at 145km/h in a
110km/h zone;

Driving in a street race or speed trial;

Intentionally or recklessly entering a level crossing when a train or tram is approaching;

Not obeying a lawful direction to stop;

Driving a vehicle with a passenger sitting in an area not designed for passengers; and

Driving while a passenger is not wearing a seatbelt.
Significant fines for repeated hoon driving offences can be up to 240 penalty points (over $34,000) and/
or imprisonment for up to two years. Drivers also incur demerit points and license loss penalties for the
hoon driving offences. Under the anti-hooning laws in Victoria, police are impounding an average of 10
vehicles per day, with over 20,000 vehicles impounded since the laws went into effect.
There is also evidence to suggest that these systems, in conjunction with behavioural and educational
programs, can achieve greater gains in reducing the prevalence and recidivism of these behaviours.
3.4
YOUNG DRIVER OFFENDER PROGRAMS
This section presents a review of national and international driver education, sanction and young
offender intervention literature. Generally it is noted that there is a lack of strong evidence associated
with the effectiveness of sanctions, education and intervention programs when evaluated independently,
with very few studies reporting strong positive effects. One of the key issues with evaluation of driver
offender programs is that the effectiveness of the programs has been evaluated against the reduction in
41
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
crash rates of participants (af Wåhlberg 2011), this poses difficulties due to the low frequency and
hence statistical power in analysis, resulting in studies requiring very large sample sizes for meaningful
analysis. More favourable results have been found when studies have considered violations, however,
for many programs, drivers have been shown to reoffend within a short period of time following the
completion of intervention programs (Zhang et al. 2011).
Evaluations of studies based on behavioural change and program content recall has been shown to
have more positive effects, however there are drawbacks that behaviour change and recall are more
weakly associated with crashes. While content recall is not necessarily a precursor for actual behaviour
change simply because there is not always automatic transfer from knowledge to behaviour: even if
people know what is right, it does not mean they will do it. The aims of many programs are to education
and inform participants of the possible risks and consequences associated with adoption of risky driving
behaviours. While achieving long-term behaviour change would be a desired outcome, it is not
necessarily possible, therefore the intention of many programs is to only inform participants of the risks
and consequences of actions.
3.4.1
Evidence-based principles for driving offence principles
Community and legal sanctions for juvenile offenders can consists of many varying punishments,
including gaol time, driver’s licence restrictions, revocation or suspension, fines and confiscation or
immobilisation of automobiles. These interventions are aimed at reducing driver recidivism rates
through punishing offending drivers (Mann et al. 1983). Many enforcement-based driving-related
offender programs are based on Deterrence Theory which suggests that appropriate, swift and severe
punishments increase a person’s perception that they will be punished if they commit a crime, and as
such this knowledge discourages offenders from repeating illegal behaviours (Taxman and Piquero
1998).
Punishment-based interventions have traditionally been the primary mode of intervention in the past,
with the effectiveness of this sanction reviewed in various studies. The majority of these studies have
focused on drink driving and these are described below.
Recidivist drink offenders are an extremely difficult group to address with many of these drivers having
alcohol addiction issues which requires more extensive and ongoing treatment management than
typically provided within the current mandatory drink driving programs. There is also evidence that
these groups may be impervious to mainstream and general deterrence, they rarely comply with road
rules, adopt other risky driving behaviours, and do not comply with existing BAC limits. There is poor
evidence that legislation such as BAC levels and associated enforcement (e.g., RBT), particularly in
isolation of other supporting programs and initiatives, will address this significant problem group, and
the alcohol-crash problems associated with them.
Managing the risks associated with repeat drink drivers, therefore requires additional approaches with
more stringent and multi-faceted implementation of legislation and enforcement, with supporting
behavioural/educational programs and more recently the evolving use of Intelligent Vehicle Systems
(ITS). Nichais and Ross (1991), conducted a review of the effectiveness of legal sanctions in dealing
42
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
with drinking drivers, and found that most types of sanctions provided some reductions in recidivism
rates. In particular, they found that license suspension and revocation provided a strong deterrence to
drivers (Nichais and Ross 1991). While the loss of licence is a major imposition for many drivers,
research has shown that many drivers continue to drive while un-licensed albeit at lower rates and
driving safer to attempt to avoid detection (Nichais and Ross 1991), reducing the effectiveness of these
sanctions.
Promising sanction-based programs for these groups are alcohol interlocks schemes. There is
evidence that interlock programs, in isolation of other supporting programs, may have only short term
benefits with lower recidivist rates identified during installation but returning to higher recidivist rates
following removal of the device (Willis et al. 2009). There is some evidence that these programs can
have longer lasting effects when implemented in combination with rehabilitation programs, particularly
those that aim to separate drinking behaviours from driving (Marques et al. 2000). Indeed, Action 36 of
the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 supports efforts to increase the use of alcohol interlocks,
suggesting that if the community supported the widespread implementation of alcohol interlocks, the
problem of alcohol-related road trauma could almost be eliminated. Furthermore, the importance of
rehabilitation in conjunction with the use of alcohol interlocks is clearly acknowledged (ATC 2011),
particularly as an effective method to separate alcohol use from driving.
Currently, Australasia applies a limited range of sanction legislation for repeat drink driving offences,
relying mainly on fines, loss of licence, education and rehabilitation programs and, in for chronic
recidivism, jail. Despite the introduction of alcohol interlocks almost a decade ago, their use is still in its
infancy and interlock programs are not a standard form of punishment. Moreover, while behavioural
interventions such as rehabilitation programs have been in existence for many years, they are most
often used within a performance-based model for eligibility for interlock removal and introduced when a
driver is nearing their device removal phase. There is some evidence that the effectiveness of
rehabilitation programs might be improved with alternative implementation scheduling (e.g., during
interlock tenure), compared with at the interlock removal stage. However, further research is necessary
to explore any variations in rehabilitation program effectiveness associated with the timing of the
program delivery within the sanction process.
While generally the deterrent effect of treatments increase with the severity of the punishment (Yu
1994), in DeYoung’s evaluation of the effectiveness of treatments in reducing drink driving rates on
recidivist drivers (Deyoung 1997) it was shown that gaol terms were ineffective in reducing drink driving
recidivism, even amongst first time offenders. In contrast, the combination of license restrictions and
first offender programs was associated with the lowest recidivism rates compared with other sanctions
evaluated in the study. The findings were also consistent for second time offender drivers. The study
found that treatment programs were more effective than licence suspension alone. However the
findings could not determine a significant difference between short (3 month) and long (30 months)
treatment programs.
The general alternative to punishment-based interventions is the use of rehabilitation approaches.
Rehabilitation approaches rely on changing the behaviours of offending drivers. The rehabilitation
43
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
approach argues that offender drivers are in need of treatment to reduce their dangerous behaviours
(Mann et al. 1983). This is often done by providing drivers with the knowledge, skills and strategies to
avoid further negative behaviours.
Driver Improvement Programs (DIPs) are widely used in the United States, with the object of the DIPs
to reduce the number of traffic rule violations, convictions and crashes experienced by drivers by
helping them correct their potentially dangerous driving behaviours (Zhang et al. 2011). Analyses of
DIPs with regards to crashes and violations have concluded that generally the programs result in
reductions in violations (Lund and Williams 1985, Masten and Peck 2004), however there is a less
pronounced reduction in crashes (Ker et al. 2005). In their analysis of the Iowa DIPs program, Zhang et
al (Zhang et al. 2011) found that only 2 percent of program participants were involved in a crash in the
13 to 18 month period after attending the course, however most drivers were reconvicted of a new
offence within 90 days of completing the course. Additionally, the study found that DIPs lowered the
probability of both male and female drivers incurring future conviction compared to drivers who had not
completed the course. Masten and Peck found that offender intervention programs included in their
study resulted in a reduction in traffic offences for between 6 months and 2 years following sanction.
Moreover, they showed that that longer and more comprehensive interventions had the greatest effect
(Masten and Peck 2004).
Previous research conducted in Victoria found that education type programs do play a role in shifting
participant’s motivation to change (Mary Sheehan 2005). Short education programs, such as the DTL
program, have been found to be a cost effect means of intervention. These programs are particularly
cost effective when implemented as a user pays program and can provide a positive complement to
other forms of sanctions, such as fines and licence suspensions (Wundersitz and Hutchinson 2006).
Some successful programs have utilised a combination of both education and punishment techniques
and evaluations of these have shown that programs are associated with a reduction in driving offences,
however no programs have been associated with reductions in crash rates (af Wåhlberg 2011).
The most effective rehabilitation programs incorporate a combination of intervention methods including
education, lifestyle change, and probationary contact and supervision. Wells-Parker and BangertDrowns (1995) found that programs that focused on lifestyle change strategies resulted in an overall
positive effect on knowledge and attitudes towards drunk driving behaviours.
3.4.2
Sanction effectiveness for juvenile offenders
Research suggests that the effectiveness of interventions vary based on the type of offenders targeted
by the treatment (Yu 1994) with repeat offender drivers less likely to be effected by penalties. Programs
that are combined with licence disqualification periods have been shown to be the most effective in
reducing recidivism (Deyoung 1997).
As noted previously, in many countries throughout the world, young drivers must progress through a
GDLS in order to obtain a full drivers licence. GDLS modes typically mandate zero or low BAC levels,
may place speed restrictions on drivers, and may include limitations on night driving and presence of
peer passengers.
44
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
In addition to limiting early driving to safer, lower risk conditions, a key aim of the GDLS system is to
motivate novice drivers to drive safely. Sanctions implemented to support adherence to GDLS
restrictions have been shown to encourage positive driving behaviours. These sanctions can include
increased penalties for driving violations and restricting the number of demerit points available to young
drivers.
These initiatives are aimed at deterring young drivers from driving in a dangerous manners associated
with high risk crashes and serious injury outcomes. The initiatives are aimed at improving compliance
with restrictions by providing strong disincentives for young drivers to disregard the conditions of their
licence (Begg et al. 2001). In order for the disincentive to be effective, penalties for offences need to be
set at appropriate levels to discourage negative driving behaviours, while a perception also must exist
that young drivers will be caught if they engage in these behaviours (Cameron and Sanderson 1982).
In addition, in order for sanctions to effectively improve young driver behaviours, Haworth (1994) noted
that the GDLS must not be time based as time alone is not an effective motivator to encourage safe
driving. Waller (1993) also notes that additional penalties for young drivers on the GDLS should extend
the length of the GDLS restriction period, arguing that this results in a requirement of a good driving
record in order to progress through the GDLS, and associated with this progression is a reduction in the
penalties associated with offences and a relaxing of restrictions. This creates an incentive for young
drivers to drive safety, as they are rewarded through increased driving privileges. Sanctions addressing
young driver safety as part of a GDLS have been shown to reduce crash rates.
GDLS programs (and their associated sanctions) have been shown to result in fewer driving offences
for young driver. In Ontario, Canada, novice drivers who are required to complete two years driving
without suspension in order to obtain a full licence have been shown to have 9 percent fewer crashes
and 14 percent fewer offences than similar cohorts (Tannahill and Smith 1990). Similar findings were
reported in Maryland, where a 10 percent reduction in convictions for traffic offences of 16 year old
drivers was found where a six-month violation-free prerequisite was required to progress to a full
license (McKnight and Tippetts 1997). These results suggest that sanctions within the GDLS process
can be effectively used to reduce the rate of driving offences amongst young drivers.
3.4.3
Targets for intervention and favourable program structures
Traditionally offender programs have been developed to address drink driving behaviours, however
progressively, offender programs have been developed to address a diverse range of high risk and
illegal driving behaviours. The importance of tailoring programs to certain offence types becomes
important when the heterogeneity of offences, such as those incorporated under new ‘hooning’
legislations, is considered. Programs that deal with potentially addictive behaviours such as drugs and
alcohol should note that the complexities of these behaviours play a key role in program design and
development, with participants requiring targeted treatment due to underlying substance abuse issues
in conjunction with addressing high risk driving behaviours.
45
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
The types and structures of rehabilitation programs should be linked to the characteristics and risk
factors of offenders being targeted by the intervention. Examples of multiple factors which may be of
relevance when designing a driver offender program evaluation include (Moore et al. 2008):

Treatment factors: length of treatment, treatment compliance;

Criminal Justice factors: criminal and traffic offence history, recidivism rates;

Risk Factors: alcohol and drug use, criminal thinking; and

Protective Factors: motivation to change, self-esteem, self-efficacy.
Specialised driver offender programs should be developed based on sub-categorisation of offenders.
Types of classifications include:

Mandatory or voluntary programs,

Age groups,

License Status i.e. Suspended, Learner drivers, Probationary drivers,

First offender or Recidivists drivers, and

Offence types i.e. hooning, drink driving, speeding
Programs can be structured to target crash and injury prevention, through fostering safer driving
practices or recidivist prevention through fostering lawful driving practices. Crash and injury prevention
programs generally focus on addressing road rules, safe driving, substance abuse, law obeisance,
defensive driving and emotions and attitudes towards dangerous driving practices. Recidivist
prevention programs, on the other hand, generally follow a structure of problem recognition, definition,
correction and resolution. In their review of driver offender programs, (McKnight and Tippetts 1997)
found evidence to suggest that programs aimed at recidivism prevention resulted in significantly fewer
accidents and violations during the following year.
Many behavioural driver programs are mandated by a court order or are attended on advice from a
solicitor in order to receive a more favourable sentence, with very few participants choosing to attend
voluntarily. Reluctance to attend courses can reduce the effectiveness of the program, with motivation
playing an important role to complete and comply with treatments, and to maintain compliance in the
longer term (DiClemente et al. 1999). Programs that are structured to engage participants and increase
the attendee’s participation by motivating them to complete the course are favourable. Engagement
issues can be addressed through requiring active participation amongst attendees in order to pass the
course.
Programs targeted at specific age groups are more effective in addressing relevant behavioural and
motivational issues. Education programs can be targeted at various age groups including younger age
groups including pre-driving populations, novice drivers and young drivers. Classroom-based programs
46
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
that are targeted towards preventative objectives of educating young and novice drivers about the
dangers associated with various high risk driving behaviours can be effective in educating future drivers
of the consequences of engaging in high risk behaviours. These programs can be administered in
school or through local community groups or the local government.
Programs targeted towards traffic offenders typically do not have any age limits, however participants
are often in the 15-25 years age group. Over representation of younger drivers in these programs is
partially attributed to the increased likelihood of engaging in risky driving, relatively high rate of driving
offences of younger drivers. There is also some suggestion that there is an increased rate of referral to
these programs for young drivers from magistrates. This is in recognition that there is a greater chance
of successful intervention for young drivers engaged in high risk driving behaviours, for whom
dangerous driving behaviours may not be entrenched or habitual and may be a result of immaturity and
lack of insight and knowledge, compared to older drivers.
Sheehan et al., (2005) proposed approaches that target drivers in accordance with their license status.
Such an approach would help to specifically target younger and inexperienced drivers on learner and
probationary licences, who are over-represented in crashes and who unintentionally engage in high risk
driving behaviours, although they may not be aware of the risks associated with their actions.
Additionally, intentional high risk driving behaviours such as drink and drug driving and excessive
speed can be addressed through educating drivers of the consequences of their actions.
Although a direct causal role between unlicensed driving and crash involvement has not been
established, unlicensed driving has been linked with higher rates of serious injury and fatal crash
involvement. Unlicensed drivers have been reported to be up to twice as likely as licensed drivers to be
included in a serious injury crash (Watson 1997), and it has been estimated that 10-20 percent of fatal
crashes involve at least one unlicensed driver (Baldock et al. 2013). With crashes involving unlicensed
drivers often involving a number of high-risk driving behaviours. These behaviours include, driving while
impaired by alcohol and drugs, motorcycle riding, exceeding the speed limit and driving at excessive
speed in adverse weather conditions (Watson 1997). Watson (1997) found that alcohol and drugs were
involved in 22.5% of serious casualty crashes involving unlicensed drivers compared to only 7.5% for
licensed drivers. These issues are relevant in determining the type of rehabilitation program structure
that might be recommended for these types of offenders.
Analyses conducted using Queensland crash data from 2003 to 2008 found that unlicensed drivers
were overrepresented in crashes across all injury severities (3.8% all injury severities). The data also
showed an increased involvement of this group in more severe crashes with 5.1% of these crashes
resulting serious injury and 8.9% in a fatality (Watson 2012).
While these findings suggest that there is a link between unlicensed driving itself and greater crash
involvement, the increased risk may be attributed to the driving behaviours rather than the unlicensed
status per se. In their case-control study into the crash involvement of unlicensed drivers in New
Zealand (outlined previously), Blows et al. (2005) identified that after controlling for age and gender,
serious injury crash risk for unlicensed drivers was 11 times higher than for drivers with a valid licence.
Based on further analysis of the high risk driving behaviours examined in the study, the authors
47
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
propose that this higher crash risk for unlicensed drivers was not a direct result of license status but
more likely attributable to the associated high risk driving behaviours commonly associated with
unlicensed driving, such as fatigue and drink driving.
Additional evidence suggests that unlicensed driving behaviour is associated with other high risk driving
behaviours such as drink driving, speeding, non-seatbelt wearing (FORS 1997). In a sample of 309
unlicensed drivers 23% admitted to drink driving, 25% exceeding the speed limit by 10km/h or greater
and 7% not wearing a seat belt, while driving when unlicensed (Watson 2003).
Offender programs are typically targeted towards repeat offenders, who exhibit higher risk
characteristics. In recent times there is a growing recognition of the advantages of adopting
preventative strategies such as driver education programs that target young drivers and first time
offenders. These programs are ideally structured when they can target key demographic variables.
Shorter programs are suited to address the issues associated with first time offenders who have
engaged in low range driving offences, while longer, more complex, treatment based programs are
better suited to treating habitual recidivist drivers.
3.5
SUMMARY
There are clear multiple risk factors, and interactions between factors involved in the development of
antisocial behaviour and the propensity to engage in risky behaviour on the road and commit driving
offences amongst juveniles. These complexities pose important challenges for implementing pre young
driver offender interventions.
While many evaluations of behavioural interventions suffer from methodological considerations
including weak design, lack of long-term follow up, poor outcome measurement variables, lack of an
understanding of confounding variables, there are some clear findings from the review regarding what
works and what doesn’t work and good practice approaches.
The measures which the existing evidence suggests are not effective in preventing juvenile crime or
committing driving offences. These include:

Juvenile curfews;

Scared straight programs;

Incarceration and Probation;

Boot camps;

Trying juveniles in adult courts;

Transforming gang membership;

Traditional driving training programs focusing on vehicle handling and control; and,
48
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program

Enforcement of sanctions in isolation of other supporting programs and initiatives.
There are a number of community, school and family-based intervention approaches that are effective
in preventing juvenile crime. Generally, a crime prevention system will be effective only if (a) the
contents and framework of prevention efforts are clearly defined and the functional opportunities of all
agencies included in that system are appropriately utilized; (b) all of the subjects and targets of
prevention work (including adolescents themselves and their relations in different spheres of society)
are covered and the specific characteristics of each are taken into consideration; and (c) the
mechanisms of administration, control and coordination for this type of prevention work have been
developed.
The key features of such educational and training programs that were identified as being particularly
effective include:

Interventions should be underpinned by sound theory and principles and a therapeutic
approach, including:
o Cognitive Behavioural Therapy components (social skills training, moral
reasoning, aggression management, motivational enhancement, etc.)
o Focus on the family in its social context (emphasising family interactions,
parental management training, enhancing emotional connections,
o Focus on restorative justice, mentoring, and motivational approaches

Characteristics of the sample group, including:
o Adhere to the principles of risk, need and responsivity
o Targeted and respond to specific needs of individuals groups and specific
behaviours
o Not stigmatising individual participants
o Are commensurate with an offender’s identified risk for reoffending
o Have a design (i.e. basic, mid or high level programme), intensity, and dosage
that match offender risk
o Are implemented in conjunction with other forms of sanctions and compliance
with restrictions and penalties
o Avoidance of programs aimed at adults

Good and consistent implementation, including:
o Clear implementation plans,
49
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
o collaboration between key sectors and provision of multiple co-ordinated
services,
o structured program content,
o recruitment and maintenance of high quality and trained staff
.
50
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
4
REVIEW OF THE DRIVE TO LEARN PROGRAM
In addition to providing an understanding of the best practice principles of offender programs and
evaluations of their effectiveness in preventing and/or reducing antisocial behaviour and offending, a
review of the current DTL program was undertaken, and the findings are presented in this chapter.
The Drive To Learn program will be targeted towards young drivers who have been apprehended for
driving related offences.
The Drive To Learn program will aim to reduce young driver offences by discouraging high risk driving
behaviour through education and encourage safe driving behaviours for young drivers who have been
apprehended for illegal driving behaviours.
4.1
PROGRAM AIMS
The Drive To Learn program aims to educate young traffic offenders about the implications of traffic
offending behaviour in contributing to road trauma and on personal criminal records and associated life
outcomes. As this group of offenders are inexperienced, unlicensed, and pose a high recidivism and
crash risk, the program aims to access these participants prior to them entering the formal youth justice
system or for repeat offenders, prior to further involvement with the youth justice system.
The specific aims of the Seminar are to:

Divert young traffic offenders from further involvement in the criminal justice process;

Confront and evaluate participant belief systems;

Assist participants in identifying and managing precursors to offending;

Provide peer discussion and problem solving;

Provide reality based learning using volunteer/emergency service worker presentations;

Develop a commitment from young driving offenders to engage in the official licensing process
and traffic legislation;

Reduce the risk of further driving offending; and,

To reduce the likelihood of the young offender causing or being involved in road trauma
through developing an understanding about the impact of their behaviour on themselves and
the wider community.
51
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
4.2
COURSE DESIGN
The DTL program is based on a design conceptualised and developed by the RTSSV, which they have
successfully applied to two other programs that they currently facilitate namely the Road Trauma
Awareness Seminar (RTAS) and the Youth Road Trauma Awareness Program (YRTAP). RTSSV also
facilitate a number of other young driver and road safety programs, summarised in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: RTSSV programs
Name of Program
Target Group
Duration
Fee user pays
RTAS
Traffic offenders as part of
sentencing or through
lawyer prior to sentencing
2.5 hours
$350 considered as part
of fine/other sanction
Accelerated Insight
Program
Community corrections
Clients – repeat traffic
offenders
6 hours over 2
weeks
Community corrections
pays for program
delivery
Youth Traffic
offender Program
Repeat traffic offenders with
youth justice orders
2.5 hours over six
weeks
Youth Justice pays for
program delivery
Youth Traffic
Offender Program
Repeat Traffic offenders
with youth justice orders
2.5 over 2
weeks(delivered in
conjunction with in
house program)
Youth Justice pays for
program delivery
Drive to Learn
Young people 14-17
charged with of facing
charges of traffic related
offences
3 hour
$80
Youth road safety
session
Young people 16-25
1.5-3hrs
Organisation pays for
session
Best drive ever:
Playing fair on our
roads
Sporting club men and
women aged 16 onwards
2 hours
Grant
The program is based on restorative justice principles and employs a cognitive behavioural approach
using both volunteer speakers with personal experiences of trauma as well as presenters from the
Emergency Services sector. The seminar has been designed to encourage participants to change their
illegal high risk driving behaviour through a process of education, reflection and prevention (RTSSV
2010a), as outlined in Table 4-2 below.
52
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Table 4-2 RTAS process components
Education
Being informed about the impact of road trauma and
about safe driving
Reflection
Listening to personal accounts of trained volunteers who
have been impacted by road trauma
Evaluating attitudes and behaviours during and post
workshops
Prevention
Identifying strategies that may assist drivers in coping
with driving challenges, such as impatience, lack of
concentration, peer pressure, aggression and lifestyle
issues
(Sourced from RTSSV 2004)
The program is based on three psychological models: Narrative Discourse, Experiential Learning, and
Cognitive Behavioural Intervention. These are summarised below.
4.2.1
Narrative Discourse
Narrative Discourse, as outlined by Anderson (2011), refers to a psychological model that uses
accounts of events, usually in the past, and employs the concept of an individual re-telling their account
as part of therapy. It is seen as particularly useful in helping individuals to make sense of events or
trauma. Volunteer speakers at the 3 hour DTL young traffic offender program have offered to tell their
specific accounts of road trauma as a way of using a painful experience to help others to avoid injuries
or worse. This narrative discourse process has a two-fold objective in that it helps the volunteer speaker
to ‘make sense’ of the impact of their own personal experience of road trauma and it also aids in the
overall education process for the young offenders through providing an understanding of the
consequences of road trauma.
4.2.2
Experiential Learning
Experiential Learning, as outlined by (Kolb et al. 1971) takes the premise that learning happens, ‘when
a person is involved in an activity, looks back at it critically, determines what is useful or important to
remember, and uses this information to perform another activity’. During the DTL program the
participants (young offenders) are guided through a process of examining their own actions that led to
their infringement. Through small group work they are asked to consider three questions:
 What did you do?
 How could things have been different for you?
 What will you do differently next time?
53
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
As a further reflection on this exercise, and as an overall reflection on what has been learned at the
whole workshop, a final question is then posed:
 What have I learned from this program?
 How would I avoid another offence in the future?
4.2.3
Cognitive-Behavioural Intervention
Cognitive-Behavioural Intervention, as outlined by (Goldfried and Davison 1994), is a useful approach
in helping participants to learn to express what they believe, need and feel. In the context of a 3 hour
program, participants can be encouraged to move from being ‘passive and helpless victims of their life
circumstances’ to viewing themselves as agents of change capable of being, ‘confident, strong, centred
and empowered, with the ability to make decisions and change their attitudes and behaviours’.
Goldfried suggests that “the enduring effects of cognitive-behavioural intervention are particularly
appropriate in prevention programs with persons at risk (as an example, young drivers), over and above
other singly used therapies.” (RTSSV 2004, p.4).
4.3
PARTICIPANTS
The target group for the DTL program is young males and females aged up to 18 years who have been
charged with (or are facing) charges relating to a traffic offence(s). These offences commonly include
theft of motor car, driving in a dangerous manner, reckless conduct endangering life/causing injury,
unlicensed and learner driver offences.
4.3.1
Participant Eligibility
Participants must satisfy the following eligibility criteria:
 The young person has no prior court appearances and is summonsed/bailed to appear at the
Children’s Court for offences against the Road Safety Act or any other offence where there is
a direct impact on Road Safety (2nd or repeat offence accepted if magistrate deems it
appropriate to undertake program);
 The defendant admits the offences and would otherwise plead guilty;
 The defendant consents and agrees to participate in the 3 hour Driving to Learn program;
 The court deems the offence appropriate for this course;
54
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
4.3.2
Formal Referral and Registration
Upon being charged with a traffic offence and being assessed as eligible to attend the DTL program,
young offenders can be referred directly by the police informant, or through the court system following
their ‘mention” hearing’ or by the lawyer.
4.3.2.1
Referral for diversions
Where a police informant deems the young offender to be suitably eligible for the program, the police
informant: completes a DTL program Referral Form; seeks formal approval from a supervising sergeant
or higher ranking officer; faxes the referral form to the RTSSV; and on behalf of the young offender
phones the RTSSV to arrange attendance at the next available course. At the mention hearing, in
addition to hearing a summary of the charges faced, the police informant outlines to the court the
defendant’s enrolment in the DTL program.
For young offenders deemed suitable to attend the program by the prosecutor a DTL Referral Form is
completed by the prosecutor and presented to the magistrate at court. Program referral can also come
directly from a magistrate. The Referral Form requests basic demographic information (e.g. Name,
DOB, contact details, guardian details), and Offence details, (e.eg. 1st or repeat offence, offence, Court
Order type).
If the court is satisfied attendance at the DTL program is appropriate, for diversion the charges are
deferred to a date post program attendance. Following successful attendance and participation in the
program, a certificate of completion is provided to the court, and at the ‘return’ hearing the charges are
discharged.
4.3.2.2
Referral for Assisting in a Plea or Sentence
Referral to attend the DTL can also be self-initiated by the young offender or through their representing
lawyer, to assist in a plea for a reduced sentence. Referral can also come directly from a magistrate
who deems that a young offender is suitably eligible to attend the DTL. Sentencing can then be
deferred allowing time for attendance at the DTL program and completion of the program can then be
taken into consideration in final sentencing. This referral process is especially relevant to situations
where the ability to “discharge” is not applicable.
4.4
PROGRAM SCHEDULE AND CONTENT
This section describes the schedule and content of the 3 hour program, and is divided into 13
complementary phases.
4.4.1
Registration and General Information
The DTL program is conducted monthly at the Youth Support & Advocacy Services (YSAS) facilities in
Dandenong, Victoria. This venue was chosen because it is a well-known local organisation that offers
55
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
support and counselling services for young people within the Dandenong region and also for its
autonomy from the formal justice system. There are 8-10 young offender participants in each 3 hour
program, which is a user pay program at a total cost of $80.
4.4.2
Welcome
Participants are welcomed, introduced to the facilitator and volunteer presenters, then asked to
introduce themselves to the group. The potential for participants to ‘not want to be there’ is verbally
acknowledged by the facilitator but they are encouraged to make the most of their time while attending
the program. The two compulsory requirements of the DTL program (active participation and
completion of the evaluation form) are explained, as is the necessity of fulfilling these requirements in
order to receive the Certificate of Attendance at the conclusion of the program. Group rules such as
respect for others and confidentiality are also explained; participants are then required to complete a
Consent Form and Registration Form and part 1 of the DTL program evaluation.
4.4.3
Video Presentation
The participants watch a video presentation titled: Harsh Reality – We want to avoid this. This video
was created by young entrants in the ‘Make a Film, Make a Difference’ (MAFMAD) run annually by the
TAC.
Following the video presentation the facilitator discusses how the video relates to the aims and
outcomes of the DTL program. They then provide some background information about the Road
Trauma Support Services Victoria, how it evolved, the philosophy behind the organisation, the type of
services they provide, and who can access these services. They also highlight the RTSSV’s neutrality
from the official Justice Department and reassure participants that the program environment aims to
foster learning, not judgement.
4.4.4
Activity 1: Where do I stand?
This activity is designed to assist participants in thinking about their beliefs regarding various
behaviours impacting road safety. In this activity participants are instructed to stand in a group in the
central part of the room. One corner of the room is then identified as the ‘Agree’ corner, another as the
‘Disagree’ corner, and the third, the ‘Unsure’ corner. The facilitator then reads out a road trauma
statistic and participants are instructed to walk to the corner which corresponds with whether they view
the statement as true or false. The statistics refer to topics such as fatigue, speed, drug/alcohol use and
distraction; these are tailored to suit the offence demographics of participants within each group.
Participants are reminded that there are no right or wrong answers and are asked to discuss the reason
behind their answer and/or comment on any statistics that were surprising to them. The facilitator then
presents visual slides containing the same statistics and summarises the discussions that took place
during the activity. This activity allows the group to explore current statistics, and debunk myths and
fallacies about road trauma risk, it also provides an initial opportunity to encourage participants to play
a more active role in the program.
56
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
4.4.5
Activity 2: Participant introductions
Each participant is asked to outline the driving offence that led to their attendance at the program and
any existing or potential pending court outcomes. The facilitator then asks more probing questions
relating to why they engaged in this behaviour, who they were with, the location, if anyone was injured,
any past offences, and the associated penalties and costs they may face; this information is recorded
by the facilitator on a whiteboard. During this exercise the facilitator plays a key role in focussing on
factual accounts of the offences and thus reducing any attempts by participants to down play their
illegal driving behaviour and the associated penalties.
Participants are then allocated into smaller groups (approx. 3 participants) and are instructed to
brainstorm about the impact that their illegal driving behaviour has had on themselves (financially,
emotionally, legally, socially), as well as on their family and friends. Each group records their discussion
points on a large sheet of paper. Following this, the main points from each group’s brainstorm activity is
shared with the entire group and recorded by the facilitator on a whiteboard. The facilitator uses this
opportunity to expand on some of the key aspects. A key focus of this discussion is on poor choices
they have made in the past that led to committing this offence and also on how these choices have
impacted, not only on themselves, but on parents, siblings, peers, their education, potential
employment etc. The session concludes with the facilitator posing the following question to the
participants, “Was it worth it?
4.4.6
Break
As well as providing the chance to get a drink and use the bathroom, the scheduled breaks provide
some additional (non-formal) time for the participants to reflect on what has been presented/discussed.
4.4.7
Volunteer Presentation
The trained Volunteer Presenter is then introduced and shares their personal story with the group. The
volunteer presenters have all experienced road trauma either personally, through a family member, or
as a witness; and many have received counselling through RTSSV in the past. When the volunteer has
finished speaking the participants are encouraged to ask questions.
At this point, participants are asked to complete Part 1 of traffic light exercise/personal contract (see
below).
57
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
4.4.8
Activity 3: Causes of Road Trauma
A series of slides are presented that explore the main causes of serious crashes, focussing on: speed,
alcohol/drugs, fatigue and distraction. The slides contain facts and statistics associated with each of
these high crash risk behaviours. Relevant activities and videos are also linked with the discussion of
these behaviours.

Speed – 3 second rule, with a key message is ‘it only takes a split second for life as you
know it to change’.
Participants are instructed to close their eyes for 2 seconds and are then asked what
happened while they had their eyes closed. This experience is then translated into an
on-road speeding example, such as detailing the effects of a 4 second distraction (e.g.
tuning radio) and calculating the associated distance travelled during this distraction
period, and adding the distance associated with various travel speeds if sudden braking
was required (post distraction). Possible confounding issues such as the road and
weather conditions and the vehicle roadworthiness are also highlighted.

Distraction – Ball activity
This is an experiential learning activity that involves the group standing in a circle and
passing the ball to each other until every person has received a pass. Initially the
passing sequence is random but participants are instructed to remember and keep
repeating this initial sequence. Additional balls are then introduced adding to the
complexity of the activity until the sequence is disrupted. Participants are then asked
why the passing sequence failed and how this activity relates to driving and distraction.

Alcohol/drugs – Beer goggles
Beer goggles are goggles that are designed to create vision impairment for the user that
simulates the effects of alcohol impairment. Alcohol affects all of our senses and it is
important to stress that this activity addresses how alcohol may affect our vision ONLY
Participants are instructed to undertake certain activities such as walking a straight line
while wearing the goggles. This activity aims to highlight the impairment associated with
alcohol intake and also confronts any notions participants may have regarding not being
affected by alcohol or ‘being a better driver when intoxicated’.

Fatigue – Video Titled: Fatigue - Spotting the Signals
This is an animated video portrayed from a driver’s perspective that depicts the various
effects of fatigue on driving ability and through the driver ignoring these warning signs
results in a crash.
58
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
4.4.9
Video/Emergency Services Presentation
After another break, the participants either i) watch a video presentation focussed on Luke Robinson, a
young driver who died in a road crash in 2010, or ii) listen to a representative from the Emergency
Services.
Video Presentation: This video suite was part of an award winning campaign funded by the Transport
Accident Commission (TAC) to address speeding behaviour though the depiction of a real life road
trauma story. To highlight ‘The Ripple Effect’ associated with road trauma, Luke’s family, friends and an
emergency services worker who attended the crash speak about the impact the crash had on their lives
(MacLeod 2011). After watching the video, participants are invited to discuss what happened, to
describe how useful the information is and to identify what they can do to avoid being involved in a
crash.
Emergency Services Presentation: A representative from the Emergency Services will present
information on the trauma outcomes associated with driving without a licence and other offences
committed by the attendees. They will outline their role at road crashes and also provide accounts of
local road trauma fatalities they have attended and the impact these events have on those involved and
their extended community. A key aim of this presentation is to dispel the myth ‘this won’t happen to me’.
Again participants are encouraged to ask questions.
4.4.10 Activity 4: Exploring ‘The Ripple Effect’
Participants are asked to draw circles on paper to represent the people who have been affected by their
traffic offence(s), using the location and size of the circles to depict the degree of affect. Participants
are then asked to explore how this may affect their reputation amongst these various people and their
associated contexts.
At this point, participants are asked to work on Part 2 of the traffic light exercise/personal contract
4.4.11 Video Presentation
Following another break, the participants watch a video presentation titled: Broken. This video explores
the story of a young man in prison as a result of a culpable driving offence.
4.4.12 Activity 5: Exploring Precursors
In this group activity participants are asked to explore in detail the events that led to their offence such
as: what they were doing at the time, who they were with, if they were intoxicated, what thoughts
accompanied their decision to commit the offence. The aim of this activity is to assist participants in
gaining an understanding of the cognitive behavioural therapy notion ‘behaviour antecedents’. The
notion that behaviours are not necessarily random events and that, to the contrary, their own high risk
behaviours often involve similar precursors that can be used to identify situations when they are at risk
of recidivism. The activity involves identification and discussion of ‘what if’, using relevant scenarios to
young people. For example, participants may be asked to describe, ‘what if there were no peer
passengers in the vehicle with them during the event that led to their offence’. Gaining an
59
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
understanding about active identification of behaviour precursors plays a key role in challenging any
existing notions of diminished individual responsibility and in turn supports a self-empowering
realisation that not only can they can actively chose to avoid engaging in high risk behaviours but in
addition they can actively chose to replace high risk habits with more positive behaviours.
4.4.13 Activity 6: Risk Activity
Participants are asked to sit in a circle and cards are dealt out amongst the group. Each card lists a
traffic offences or risky driving behaviour. Participants then sit in a circle and take turns at placing their
card in the centre of the group, to form a straight line depicting the degree of risk that offence/behaviour
poses from low to high risk. Participants are instructed not to comment on the other’s choices. Once all
the cards are lined up the groups discusses the order of the cards and individuals get the opportunity to
change the order but they are also required to explain to the group the reasoning behind this choice.
The group then discusses the reasons why the offence/behaviour listed on the first card is the least
risky and why the offence on the last card is the most risky. To summarise a slide is presented that
outlines some of the initiatives that the police undertake to improve road safety.
4.4.14 Traffic Light Exercise
The facilitator uses a traffic light metaphor in relation to the participant’s unlicensed driving behaviour
as a tool to review the day’s discussions and activities. The ‘Red light’ is likened to the incident that led
to their attendance at the program, and which has already been discussed in Activity 5 – Exploring
Precursors. The importance of identifying and acknowledging the events, attitudes and behaviours that
led to committing their offence is highlighted especially in regard to how this insight can be used to
avoid future illegal behaviours. Next they focus on the ‘Amber light’ – events that could have happened,
such as road trauma and the associated ripple effect. They are reminded that while they may have
been fortunate enough to have avoided road trauma involvement, that statistically there is a high
likelihood that if they re-engage in risky behaviours in the future it could easily become a reality. The
main focus of this discussion session in on introducing the concept behind the ‘Green light’ - what they
intend to do differently in the future. Participants are encouraged to provide in-depth details about what
behaviours they intend to avoid in the future and what positive, legal behaviours these can be replaced
with. The facilitator summarises key points on the white board to stimulate further discussion.
4.4.15 Personal Contract
Participants are then required to complete individual contracts. The aim of this written contract is to
formalise the changes they outlined in the Green light discussion and takes the form of a pledge toward
changes they intend to make in their future driving behaviour. The contract includes a pledge to refrain
from unlicensed driving, to engage in the formal licensing system in the future and to adhere to traffic
legislation. The participant then seals the contract in a self-addressed envelope to be mailed to them by
RTSSV in one month. The receipt of their contract in the mail at a later date is designed to act as
re-enforcement for their commitment to refrain from risky, illegal driving behaviour.
60
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
4.4.16 Evaluation and Summary
Participants then complete the mandatory evaluation form.
The facilitator then summarizes the program such as: the road trauma statistics, the key messages of
the presenters, the importance of making informed driving choices and taking responsibility for one’s
own actions on the road.
A group discussion explores what has been learned from the program and every participant is then
asked to state one thing they intend to do differently. The facilitator then reminds participants that they
can access counselling through the RTSSV if they need further support.
Participants are then shown a final video clip: Zero tolerance. This video was produced by the TAC and
includes interviews with people asking them about ‘how many people die on Victorian roads very year’
and ‘what would be an acceptable number of road trauma deaths in their family’. The aim of the video is
to show how when the road toll involves us personally (e.g. family) then no deaths are acceptable, and
it is used to reinforce the programs final take home message:
“Go with Zero road toll, share what you’ve learnt with others. Make the right choice, STAY SAFE”
Participants who attended and complied with the rules of the program (active participation, completion
of program evaluation), are then provided with a Certificate of Attendance to present at court, the
program hand-outs (e.g. RTSSV fridge magnet, first aid kit) and parting words of encouragement.
4.4.17 Follow Up Activities
As mentioned, participant’s individual contracts are mailed to them one month after their attendance at
the program. A telephone survey is also conducted six months after completing the program.
4.5
4.5.1
STAFF TRAINING
Facilitator Training
The Educators, of which there are currently 20, are paid employees of RTSSV. They are typically from
a social science/counselling background although some have previously been volunteer presenters.
The key criteria for all facilitators of RTSSV educational programs is that they must have relevant
experience of working in road trauma-related fields, have qualifications in relevant fields such as adult
education or health, and have experience working with groups and offender/group facilitation. The
Educator training includes i) a full day training program, ii) observation of a program, and ii)
supervised/observed delivery of first program. For the youth programs, facilitators are required to i)
attend a four-day training program, ii) co-facilitate a session, and iii) deliver program under
supervision/observation. A Sessional Educator Induction Manual outlining their roles and the RTSSV
policies and procedures, and a Community Educators Manual which is a detailed program guide for the
conduct of the RTSSV’s offender education programs, are provided to all new employees. Educators
61
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
undergo an initial 3-month probation period. “All employees are expected to contribute towards quality
and continuous improvement, programme monitoring and review, and to demonstrate commitment to
ensure quality programmes are delivered. It is expected that all employees and volunteers will uphold
the organisation’s mission values and high quality of service.” (RTSSV 2010a, p.4). In addition to their
annual performance appraisal, where Educators are encouraged to actively provide feedback about the
program, the Educators attend regular team meetings. To promote uniformity in the program delivery, it
is the responsibility of the Education Services Manager to ensure program modifications and updates
are presented to and adopted by the Educators.
4.5.2
Volunteer Presenter Training
A volunteer presenter attends each DTL program session, the volunteer can be an Emergency
Services representative or a community volunteer who has personally experienced road trauma
(themselves or family members). The community presenters have typically been clients of trauma
counselling at the RTSSV however, it is recommended that they wait at least 2 years post trauma
before taking on this role. The volunteer presenters’ role is to give a 15-20 minute presentation based
on their personal experience of road trauma; they do not play a role in facilitating the seminar.
These presenters are required to attend a training program facilitated by the RTSSV. The training
consists of three, 3-hour sessions, conducted over a number of weeks to provide time for presenters to
reflect on their stories. The first training session is designed to provide information about the target
groups they will be speaking to. The second session focuses on the messages to be conveyed and
working on the story, sharing their story, practicing and refining it, and to develop debriefing sources
and strategies (to meet the needs of both the program and themselves). Specifically, this session
provides information and guidance in the development of their personal stories addressing topics such
as: clear identification of the message they want to portray, engaging the audience, voice projection,
and regularly updating any factual information they present. The third session involves observation of a
program. Following this, volunteers deliver their story to a group, then return for a follow up session to
review/debrief and ensure their readiness to deliver and be part of the program. It is important to note
that the training and inclusion of volunteer presenters provides a two-fold benefit for both the program
and the individual volunteer. For the individual, it provides a source of reflection of their experience and
can assist in the healing process from their trauma.
62
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Most young people tend to engage in some level of risk-taking and antisocial behaviour. While most of
these behaviours are part of maturation, are low risk and do not require intervention, there are some
youth who engage in more serious, higher-risk antisocial and delinquent behaviours, such as theft,
driving unlicensed, and other risky driving behaviours, etc., who require intervention through the
juvenile justice system. Moreover, the number of youths attending court for first and repeat driving
offences is increasing.
Research has shown that implementing proven, scientifically based programs and interventions can
have a preventive effect, making it less likely that individuals will engage in crime and equipping them
with skills to support them in making positive contributions to society. Through the use of evidencebased programs, practices and policies, we can more effectively address the problems of juvenile
delinquency and antisocial behaviour including driving offences while making the best use of
increasingly limited financial resources.
The overall aims of this study were therefore to assess various characteristics of the ‘Drive To Learn’
(DTL) program with best-practice principles in behavioural interventions involving young offenders and,
where necessary, offer recommendations for modification or enhancement to the program.
The key tasks for this project were to:

Identify international best-practice principles in driver education programs and existing young
offender programs;

Conduct a comparison of the DTL program with other promising young offender programs and
general best-practice principles; and,

Provide recommendations for enhancing the DTL program, particularly with regard to key
messages, program content and delivery, and data collection to support future empirical
evaluations of the program.
This final chapter brings together the findings of the review of the literature and the assessment of the
DTL program and makes comparisons regarding the extent to which the program aligns with good
practice principle approaches, program content, key messages, delivery and monitoring of the program.
5.1
COMPARISON OF DRIVE TO LEARN PROGRAM WITH BEST PRACTICE
Current international thinking regarding the management of juvenile offenders and antisocial behaviour
suggests that there are a number of community and family-based intervention approaches that are
effective in preventing juvenile delinquency and crime or complementing the juvenile justice system. A
number of key features were identified as being particularly effective and these have been compared
with the underlying principles and features of the DTL program. These are outlined in Table 5-1.
63
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Table 5-1 Comparison of Drive to Learn program with ‘best practice’ characteristics
Key identified ‘best-practice’ intervention characteristics
DTL program comparison characteristics
Sound theory and principles

Youth Justice Systems are couched within a number of
principles and guidelines (UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child, UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile
Delinquency, and UN National Standard Minimum Rules
for the Administration of Juvenile Justice). These require
all interventions to:
i) understand youth and the maturation process,
 Based on restorative justice principles, non-judgemental, and no
stigmatization – this aligns with the principles of understanding
youth and the maturation process, and that people should be
detained only as a last resort
 Program aims to prevent entry to the justice system and to divert
offenders from further involvement in the criminal justice process
ii) a focus on prevention, allow young people to be
diverted away from further involvement in the justice
system when appropriate, and
iii) understand that young people should be detained
only as a last resort.
Therapeutic approaches

Community-based approaches, in collaboration with the
justice system
 Provides community-based opportunities for prevention and
rehabilitation

CBT, incorporating specific characteristics

Family-oriented programs, focusing on enhancing family
interactions, parental management training, enhancing
emotional connections, increasing family problem solving
skills, and enhanced parenting style (adoption of coercive
 Based on CBT principles and focuses on assisting participants to
identify behavioural precursors to adoption of antisocial and
delinquent behaviour and exploring the opportunities of replacing
these behaviours with positive social behaviours.
 While the program activities are designed to assist participants to
64
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
style, and providing structure guidance and limits for their
children), and including FFT and MT.

Separation of individuals from negative peer and social
interactions

Align with established Health Behaviour Change models
reflect on using experiences to change behaviour in the future,
the program does not appear to include specific characteristics of
CBT that are effective such as self-regulatory skills training,
social skills training, moral reasoning, aggression management,
anger control and interpersonal problem-solving
 Does not appear to include any family-oriented therapies. It is
understood that RTSSV considered inclusion of parents in the
program, however, due to financial constraints, this component
was not developed for the initial program, but may be included in
further program refinement.
 While some discussion of peer influence on risk is included in
some activities, the program does not appear to include any
guidance on reducing the effects of peer influence
Participants and target group

Adhere to the principles of risk, need and responsivity

Target specific group and type of behaviour

Recognise the heterogeneity of the juvenile populations
and complexities associated with the range of behaviours

Avoid programs that are aimed at adults

Have a design, intensity and dosage that match offender
risk (for basic-level programs targeting low to medium
risk offenders, the recommended intervention length is
usually 40-70 hours)
 Targets a particular age group and offence type associated with
driving, but this could involve a range of offences including theft
of vehicle, unlicensed driving, drink driving, speeding, etc.
 Based on the established YTOP, the key messages, activities
and content are targeted at youth
 The program consists of one 3-hour program (with intensive
information and activities) and two brief follow up activities
?
The program is tailored to the most common traffic offence within
the group, with some recognition of additional confounding
behaviours and discussion of overall risk however, it is unclear
regarding the extent to which discussion of other non-traffic
illegal behaviours are undertaken.
65
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
?
While the key traffic offences are addressed, it is unclear if the
the heterogeneity of the population is adequately recognized.
Program plan and implementation

Work with a range of services to strengthen communitybased options

Treatment should be conducted in environments where
social behaviours naturally occur, and a familiar
environment to participants

Structured to enhanced motivation for participants to
attend
 Pools resources from a variety of professional and community
sectors including Police, emergency services and community
volunteers.
 Program is conducted regularly at a well-known youth facility that
has autonomy from the justice system.
 Attendance at the program is mandated by court, typically
diversionary (unless associated with mandatory sanctions), it is a
user-pay program, and a personal contract is signed at the end
of the course – strong motivators
Program structure, content and key messages

Structured program content
 The content is well planned and structured

Use of a combination of methods

Accommodates various learning styles
 The program is multi-modal, incorporating a number of
components including videos, activities, information, reflection,
learning processes and interaction/group processes and
motivational enhancement methods to achieve change.
 Uses good interactive style and includes experiential learning
and reflection of their behaviour
 No information regarding potential adaptation of program for
youth who have learning/literacy challenges
 Lack of content addressing the contribution of inexperience in
66
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
young driver crash risk and adoption of safer driving practices
?
Uses narrative discourse with volunteer speakers. It is
understood that RTSSV invests significant time in training the
volunteer speaker and understands the benefits of providing a
mentoring relationship with participants. If delivered to achieve a
mentoring effect, to enhance the identification by participants to
road trauma victims, and addresses the restorative rehabilitation
principle, this approach may have some benefit.
Program staff and delivery

Recruitment and maintenance of high quality and trained
staff

Staff are trained to deliver key messages to target
audience
 Both facilitators and volunteer presenters are experienced and
undergo intensive training and regular in-service refresher
training
Program monitoring and evaluation
Sound and ongoing evaluation of intervention performance to
i)
Enable sustained management of the program
 All participants are required to complete an evaluation form on
completion of the program
ii)
Build the evidence base of effective practice
?
Good scientific evaluation design
67
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
5.2
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are significant individual impacts and societal costs of engaging in criminal or antisocial activity at
an early age such as the risks of injury and long-term ill health, and of becoming chronic offenders in
later adolescence and continued criminal careers in adulthood. It is therefore important to develop and
implement the most effective interventions or combinations of interventions to ensure that antisocial
behaviour is prevented or delinquency receives appropriate rehabilitation.
In comparison with best-practice principles, therapeutic approaches, program design, implementation,
delivery and evaluation, the DTL program meets the majority of the recommended intervention
characteristics. In addition, there are some areas where the program could benefit from some
enhancements. A list of recommendations is provided below.
5.2.1
Recommendations
Theory and Principles:
The overarching principles and theories of the DTL program are aligned with those set within Australian
and international youth justice systems and are appropriate. In particular, the DTL program recognises
that the overall aims of the program are to prevent the onset of juvenile criminal and antisocial
behaviour, and to reduce the risk of recidivism. The RTSSV team also recognise the importance of
providing a non-judgmental environment and one that does not stigmatise individual participants to
enhance participant engagement and learning.
The following recommendation is made:
 DTL retains the overarching principles and ensures that all program content and
activities are designed to be delivered in a non-judgmental manner and individuals are
not stereotyped or stigmatised.
Therapeutic Approaches:
The evidence suggested that a number of therapeutic approaches were effective in preventing youth
crime and antisocial behaviour and reducing recidivism. The key features include: provision of
community-based programs to complement and support the youth justice system; programs based on
Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy; inclusion of family-oriented components, and Behavioural Change
models; and, separation of individuals from negative peer and social interactions.
The DTL is a community-based program and works closely with the Dandenong youth justice system. It
is also based on CBT principles. It was noted that, while selected CBT characteristics form the basis of
some of the activities and key messages, some important and effective components were not
specifically addressed. It was also noted that the program does not include any family oriented
therapies or training, nor does it include any peer-oriented skills training or guidance.
The following recommendations are made:
68
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
 While the program currently includes some important CBT characteristics, RTSSV
considers the enhancement of existing characteristics or inclusion of additional key CBT
characteristics in the program structure and components, particularly self-regulatory
skills training, social skills training, moral reasoning, aggression management, anger
control and interpersonal problem-solving;
 Given the importance of the family social structure on youth delinquency and antisocial
behaviour, RTSSV could consider a stronger focus on other relationships in a youth’s
life. This could include the inclusion of components providing information, skills training
and support for family structure and interactions. Components that could be considered
for inclusion include: enhancing family interactions, involvement and positive
reinforcement, parental management training, enhancing emotional connections,
increasing family problem solving skills, and enhanced parenting style (adoption of
coercive style, and providing structure guidance and limits for their children), and
including FFT and MT. It is understood that RTSSV is considering the addition of some
parent information sessions in future program development.
 It is also important to address the influence of negative peer and social interactions on
attitudes and behaviour of youth offenders. RTSSV could consider enhancing existing
messages and including some additional information on the risks of continued social
interaction with negative peers and the benefits of establishing positive peer social
interactions and provide skills training to enhance positive relationships and coping
strategies.
Participant characteristics and target group considerations:
The evidence suggests that programs which are effective in preventing youth crime and antisocial
behaviour and reducing recidivism have been found to adhere to the risk, need and responsivity
principles. In essence, this means understanding the target group, risk factors associated with the
various target groups and therefore their specific needs and what they are responsive to. It is also
important to understand the heterogeneity of the groups and the risky/antisocial behaviours that groups
adopt and tailor the program accordingly.
While the DTL program adheres to many of the risk, need and responsivity principles, through its focus
on a set of specific offences and a specific age group, and by ensuring content and key messages are
targeted at youth, there would be benefit in enhancing some additional aspects of the program,
The following recommendations are made:
 While it is understood that RTSSV provides some recognition of additional confounding
behaviours in the program, particularly in the risk activity, consideration should be given
to directing more activities and discussion around how, and the extent to which, other
behaviours are associated with the driving offence, and by providing additional practical
skills training to reduce engaging in risky behaviours in general
69
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
 Given that the program focuses on a specific group of youth offenders, RTSSV should
recognize more clearly the heterogeneity of the population and tailor the program to
include individual differences. If some participants are high risk serious offenders, this
program type may not be appropriate and they may continue on a path of criminal
activity into later adolescence and adulthood. It may be that more intensive and
alternative programs and interventions are required for some participants and could be
considered by RTSSV. This would depend on the issues and the offence type, and may
include referral to more intensive treatment programs if available.
 Given that the evidence suggests a minimum program dose of 40-70 hours for low risk
offenders and increased dose and intensity for higher risk offenders (some of whom may
attend the program), RTSSV should consider ways in which the length and intensity of
the program could be increased. It is understood that the cost is set at $80, an
appropriate amount for youth (many of whom have access to little or no funds), and that
this program is conducted at-cost to RTSSV. It would therefore be difficult to increase
the cost to individuals. Moreover, the costs cannot be reduced, nor can the program be
extended to increase the intensity with the current funding level. It is recommended that
RTSSV consider seeking some government funding and/or corporate sponsorship to
contribute funds and resources to the development of an extended program.
Program implementation, structure, content and key messages:
The development of effective interventions require clear implementation plans and structures, as well
as course structure, content and messages that will motivate participants to take on board the intended
messages and change attitudes and behaviours accordingly. The evidence suggests that program
effectiveness is dependent on some key features.
The RTSSV currently conducts the DTL program at an appropriate community-based location and
includes resources from various professional and community groups. It also structures the recruitment,
referral and implementation appropriately to maximise motivation to attend the program. In terms of
content, structure and delivery style, DTL achieves most suggested features of effective programs
including: well-planned and structured, good use of multi-modal information provision techniques and
activities, and employs good interactive styles. Enhancements to accommodate youths with learning
difficulties and other challenges should be considered, and as well as the gaps identified in the
provision of some important information. Further, the evidence regarding the use of volunteer
presenters is mixed, particularly if these sessions are based on fear arousal and shock (existing
research into fear based countermeasures is limited and typically based on its application in advertising
campaigns). However, if they are intended as providing mentorship and real-life identification of road
trauma consequences, there may be benefit in including them in the program.
The following recommendations are made:
 RTSSV could consider adaptation of the program to accommodate the difficulties,
limitations and challenges experienced by youth with learning difficulties, poor social
70
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
skills, literary challenges, etc. The learning environment could be adapted to ensure all
participants have the opportunity to learn, and facilitators should be mindful of assisting
individuals with these difficulties.
 Given the main focus of the program is to inform participants on the impacts of engaging
in risky driving behaviours, how young driver risk is managed within the Safe System
approach, and the responsibilities of all key stakeholders, RTSSV may be able to
enhance current Safe System messages to better motivate participants to adopt safer
driving practices by stressing that the philosophy behind traffic legislation is not to punish
the ‘bad’ individual but to promote a shared public road safety responsibility.
 In addition, a few of the key risk factors associated with young driver crash and injury
risk have been overlooked, such as: the influence of peer passengers, night time driving,
and vehicle choice. This information should be included.
 RTSSV could consider providing additional information on the adoption of alternative
(non-road use) behaviours to replace a desire to engage in ‘thrill-seeking’ activities.
 RTSSV could consider providing additional information on the role of parents in
modelling and supporting safe driving behaviours
Program monitoring and evaluation:
An important component of any intervention is to ensure that high quality evaluations are conducted to
ensure continued monitoring and re-development of the program and to contribute to the knowledge
base on component and overall program- effectiveness.
It is difficult to conduct and therefore find sound evaluations of youth offender interventions. There are
many methodological issues in designing robust evaluation frameworks, some of which can be
addressed by strategic program data collection. Ideal evaluations are time consuming and expensive to
conduct, there are challenges in recruiting difficult to access recidivist and illegal behaviour groups, and
expert advice is required regarding group definition outcome selection and analysis techniques,.
Nevertheless, if a robust and practical evaluation framework is developed at the outset of the program,
good evaluations are possible.
The following recommendations are made:
 Establishment of data collection systems to include the following data:
In-depth profile of participants including demographic factors, family structure and
interactions, engagement in other antisocial or criminal behaviour, prior offences,
substance abuse, presence of child abuse or neglect, peer influences, etc. These data
can provide insight into the types of youth offenders who benefit from the program and
those who do not. For instance, it may be that the program is not as effective in
addressing the issues of youth who are at high risk of engaging in serious and violent
crime, compared with youth who engage in less serious antisocial behaviours. Youths
71
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
and adults who engage in (repeated) serious and violent crime are recognised across
many disciplines as extremely difficult groups to manage and report low behaviour
change success rates in a range of behaviours including driving, health attributes,
substance abuse. If a high proportion of DTL program attendees derive from these
groups, the program may require re-development to include more intensive or alternative
approaches, or the establishment of a referral system to more specific or intensive
treatment options.
 Establish a systematic follow up data collection process of participants to assess the
sustainability of the program in preventing offences and maintaining low recidivism rates.
 Selection of outcome measures in the evaluation framework. It is important that a broad
range of outcome measures are explored for their utility in examining various program
outcomes. For example, outcome measures such as recidivism rely on clearly
formulated definitions of recidivist behaviour and the consideration of any varying
degrees associated within this behaviour. As the program may play an important role in
the development process of youths who attend, which can be reflected in more subtle or
longer term behaviour changes, outcome measures that reflect progressive behavioural
maturity or reductions in antisocial behaviours rather than dichotomous success or
failure measures may be more appropriate.
 Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the program in terms of the effect on reducing
crashes, offences and infringements, and in terms of more broad benefits in reducing
costs associated with ongoing involvement in the youth justice system.
5.2.2
Conclusions
A substantial proportion of young people engage in high risk driving behaviours, such as speeding,
drink/drug driving, ‘hooning’, non-seat-belt use and unlicensed driving. While legislation and
enforcement systems are recognized as an effective means to curb illegal driving behaviours amongst
this group, there is also good evidence that supporting community-based interventions play an
important role in supporting the youth justice system in preventing these behaviours and reducing
recidivism.
The overall objective of this study was to assess the benefits of a community-based young driver
offender program (the DTL program), in comparison with current best-practice national and international
evidence regarding young offender and young driver offender programs, and, where necessary, offer
recommendations for modification or enhancement to the DTL program.
The findings of the review of the literature addressing contributing factors to risk of engaging in youth
criminal activities, antisocial behaviours and young driver crash and injury risk suggested that there is a
range of contributing factors including individual (maturation, inexperience, propensity to engage in
‘thrill-seeking’ behaviour, poor hazard perception), demographic, family, social (peers) and school,
vocational and recreational factors.
72
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
The findings of the review of effectiveness of interventions for youth antisocial, criminal and driving
offences suggested that driving offences may be just one set of behaviours within a complex range of
antisocial/criminal behaviours that can be prevented, diverted from entering the youth justice system, or
mediated and managed through the youth justice system with supporting behavioural interventions. The
findings also revealed best practice features of behavioural interventions.
The characteristics and features of the DTL program were compared with these findings. The results
suggested that, overall, the DTL program aligned well with overall youth justice system principles and
therapeutic approaches, particularly diversion from entering the system. Further, the program
implementation, content, structure and staffing was compatible with best-practice approaches. However,
there were some aspects of the program that could be enhanced, and a suite of recommendations for
consideration were provided. These included recommendations for additions to therapeutic approaches,
target group considerations, additions to program content and key messages, as well as
recommendations to ensure that appropriate and measureable variables are collected and available for
robust evaluation of the program in the immediate and long-term future.
The development of the DTL program is an innovative, exciting and promising achievement and should
be supported. Currently, the program is yet to commence, and on commencement, it is intended to gain
important feedback from participants regarding content, delivery and process, etc, this process will
provide important information on which to ensure the program best meets the needs of the group it is
intended for. Notwithstanding, this initial review of ‘best-practice’ characteristics has provided an initial
understanding of what works best. By considering the inclusion of key features of evidence-based
effective interventions, the DTL would meet best-practice standards and principles and ultimately make
a significant contribution to the prevention of youth driving offences, with the potential to contribute to
the prevention of additional juvenile antisocial behaviours.
73
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
6
REFERENCES
Aberg, L. and P.-A. Rimmo (1998). "Dimensions of aberrant driver behaviour." Ergonomics, 41(1): 39-56.
af Wåhlberg, A. E. (2011). "Re-education of young driving offenders: Effects on recorded offences and selfreported collisions." Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14(4): 291-299.
AIHW (2007). Young Australians: Their health and wellbeing 2007. Canberra, Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare.
AIHW (2014). Youth justice in Australia 2012-13. Canberra, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. AIHW
bulletin no. 120.
Åkerstedt, T. and G. Kecklund (2001). "Age, gender and early morning highway accidents." Journal of Sleep
Research, 10(2): 105-110.
Aldridge, B., M. Himmler, L. Aultman-Hall and N. Stamatiadis (1999). "Impact of passengers on young driver
safety." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1693(1): 2530.
Alparslan, B., C. Dereboy, S. Savk, H. Kaynak, I. Dereboy, E. Cullu, I. Ozkan and S. Ayaz (1999). "The
relationship of traffic accidents with personality traits." Journal of Traffic Medicine, 27(1-2): 25-30.
Andrews, D. A. and J. Bonta (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct, Elsevier.
Andrews, D. A. and C. Dowden (2006). "Risk Principle of Case Classification in Correctional Treatment A MetaAnalytic Investigation." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1):
88-100.
Andrews, D. A., I. Zinger, R. D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau and F. T. Cullen (1990). "Does correctional
treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis." Criminology, 28(3):
369-404.
Armelius, B. A. and T. H. Andreassen (2007). "Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in
residential treatment." Cochrane Database Syst Rev,(4): Cd005650.
ATC (2011). National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020. Canberra, Australian Transport Council.
ATSB (2002). International Road Safety Comparisons. Canberra, Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Baldock, M., J. Royals, S. Raftery, T. Bailey and M. Lydon (2013). Developing measures to reduce unlicensed
driving. CASR Report, Adelaide, SA.
Barton, W. (2000). Alternatives in juvenile corrections. Indiana, US, Indiana Family Impact Seminars. .
Begg, D. J., J. D. Langley and S. M. Williams (1999). "A longitudinal study of lifestyle factors as predictors of
injuries and crashes among young adults." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 31(1–2): 1-11.
Begg, D. J., S. Stephenson, J. Alsop and J. Langley (2001). "Impact of graduated driver licensing restrictions on
crashes involving young drivers in New Zealand." Injury Prevention, 7(4): 292-296.
74
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Beirness, D. J. and H. M. Simpson (1988). "Lifestyle correlates of risky driving and accident involvement among
youth." Alcohol, Drugs & Driving, 4: 193-204
Bingham, C. R. and J. T. Shope (2004). Adolescent developmental antecedents of risky driving among young
adults . Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65: 84+.
Bingham, C. R., J. T. Shope, J. E. Parow and T. E. Raghunathan (2009). "Crash types: markers of increased risk
of alcohol-involved crashes among teen drivers." Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(4): 528.
Bingham, C. R., J. T. Shope and T. Raghunathan (2006). "Patterns of traffic offenses from adolescent licensure
into early young adulthood." Journal of Adolescent Health 39(1): 35-42.
BITRE (2013). Road deaths Australia, 2012 Statistical Summary. Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and
Regional Economics. Canberra, ACT.
Blows, S., S. Ameratunga, R. Q. Ivers, S. K. Lo and R. Norton (2005). "Risky driving habits and motor vehicle
driver injury." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(4): 619-624.
Borowsky, A., T. Oron-Gilad and Y. Parmet (2009). "Age and skill differences in classifying hazardous traffic
scenes." Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(4): 277-287.
Borum, R. (2003). "Managing At-Risk Juvenile Offenders in the Community Putting Evidence-Based Principles
Into Practice." Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(1): 114-137.
Braitman, K. A., B. B. Kirley, A. T. McCartt and N. K. Chaudhary (2008). "Crashes of novice teenage drivers:
Characteristics and contributing factors." Journal of Safety Research, 39(1): 47-54.
Brorsson, B., H. Rydgren and J. Ifver (1993). "Single-vehicle accidents in Sweden: A comparative study of risk
and risk factors by age." Journal of Safety Research, 24(1): 55-65.
Burns, P. C. and G. J. S. Wilde (1995). "Risk taking in male taxi drivers: Relationships among personality,
observational data and driver records." Personality and Individual Differences, 18(2): 267-278.
Cameron, H. and J. Telfer (2004). "Cognitive-Behavioural Group Work: Its Application to Specific Offender
Groups." The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1): 47-64.
Cameron, M. H. and J. T. Sanderson (1982). Review of police operations for traffic law enforcement., RACV.
Carr, A. (2003). The handbook of child and adolescent clinical psychology: A contextual approach, Routledge.
Caspi, A., D. Begg, N. Dickson, H. Harrington, J. Langley, T. E. Moffitt and P. A. Silva (1997). "Personality
differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: evidence from a longitudinal study."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5): 1052.
Caspi, A., J. McClay, T. E. Moffitt, J. Mill, J. Martin, I. W. Craig, A. Taylor and R. Poulton (2002). "Role of
genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children." Science, 297(5582): 851-854.
Catchpole, J. E., W. A. Macdonald and L. Bowland (1994). Young driver research program: The influence of agerelated and experience-related factors on reported driving behaviour and crashes. Monash University
Accident Research Centre.
75
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1994). "Risky driving behaviors among teenagers--Gwinnett County,
Georgia, 1993." MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 43(22): 405-409.
Chapman, P. R. and G. Underwood (1998). "Visual search of dynamic scenes: Event types and the role of
experience in viewing driving situations." Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception: 369-394.
Chen, H. Y., R. Q. Ivers, A. L. C. Martiniuk, S. Boufous, T. Senserrick, M. Woodward, M. Stevenson, A.
Williamson and R. Norton (2009). "Risk and type of crash among young drivers by rurality of residence:
Findings from the DRIVE Study." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(4): 676-682.
Chen, I. G., D. R. Durbin, M. R. Elliott, T. Senserrick and F. K. Winston (2006). "Child passenger injury risk in
motor vehicle crashes: A comparison of nighttime and daytime driving by teenage and adult drivers."
Journal of Safety Research, 37(3): 299-306.
Chen, L.-H., S. P. Baker, E. R. Braver and G. Li (2000). "Carrying passengers as a risk factor for crashes fatal to
16-and 17-year-old drivers." JAMA, 283(12): 1578-1582.
Chen, S., T. Matruglio, D. Weatherburn and J. Hua (2005). "Transition from Juvenile to Adult Criminal Careers,
The." BOCSAR NSW Crime and Justice Bulletins: 12.
Clarke, D. D., P. Ward and W. Truman (2005). "Voluntary risk taking and skill deficits in young driver accidents in
the UK." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(3): 523-529.
Connor, J., R. Norton, S. Ameratunga, E. Robinson, I. Civil, R. Dunn, J. Bailey and R. Jackson (2002). "Driver
sleepiness and risk of serious injury to car occupants: population based case control study." British
Medical Journal, 324(7346): 1125.
Corfitsen, M. (1999). "‘Fatigue’among young male night-time car drivers: is there a risk-taking group?" Safety
Science, 33(1): 47-57.
Cottle, C. C., R. J. Lee and K. Hieldbrun (2001). "The Prediction of Criminal Recidivism in Juveniles: A MetaAnalysis." Criminal Justice and Behavior 28(3): 367-394.
Crettenden, A., Yeo & Drummond, A. (1994). The young driver problem versus the young problem driver.
Canberra, Australia, Federal Office of Road Safety.
Cuncliffe, N. (2011). Road Trauma Support Services Project. C. Harrison.
Curry, A. E., J. Hafetz, M. J. Kallan, F. K. Winston and D. R. Durbin (2011). "Prevalence of teen driver errors
leading to serious motor vehicle crashes." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(4): 1285-1290.
Dahl, R. E. (2008). "Biological, developmental, and neurobehavioral factors relevant to adolescent driving risks."
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(3): S278-S284.
Deery, H. A. (2000). "Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers." Journal of Safety Research,
30(4): 225-236.
DeJoy, D. M. (1992). "An examination of gender differences in traffic accident risk perception." Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 24(3): 237-246.
76
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Deyoung, D. J. (1997). "An evaluation of the effectiveness of alcohol treatment, driver license actions and jail
terms in reducing drunk driving recidivism in California." Addiction, 92(8): 989-997.
DiClemente, C. C., L. E. Bellino and T. M. Neavins (1999). "Motivation for change and alcoholism treatment."
Alcohol Research and Health, 23(2): 86-92.
Dishion, T. J., D. W. Andrews and L. Crosby (1995). "Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence:
Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process." Child Development, 66(1): 139-151.
Dishion, T. J., D. C. French and G. R. Patterson (1995). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior,
John Wiley & Sons.
Dishion, T. J., K. M. Spracklen, D. W. Andrews and G. R. Patterson (1996). "Deviancy training in male
adolescent friendships." Behavior Therapy, 27(3): 373-390.
Doherty, S. T., J. C. Andrey and C. MacGregor (1998). "The situational risks of young drivers: The influence of
passengers, time of day and day of week on accident rates." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 30(1): 4552.
Dowden, C. and D. A. Andrews (2000). "Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A metaanalysis." Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42: 449.
Drummond, A. E. (1994). "Young driver research program: A technical and strategic overview of exposure
reduction measures as a means of reducing young driver crashes." Monash University Accident
Research Centre.
Elander, J., R. West and D. French (1993). "Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash
risk: An examination of methods and findings." Psychological Bulletin, 113(2): 279.
Elvik, R. (2010). "Why some road safety problems are more difficult to solve than others." Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 42(4): 1089-1096.
Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
Evans, L. (2004). Traffic safety.
Evans, L. and P. Wasielewski (1983). "Risky driving related to driver and vehicle characteristics." Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 15(2): 121-136.
Falkmer, T. and N. P. Gregersen (2001). "Fixation patterns of learner drivers with and without cerebral palsy (CP)
when driving in real traffic environments." Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 4(3): 171-185.
Farrington, D. (1994). "Early developmental prevention of juvenile delinquency." RSA Journal, 142(5454): 22-34.
Farrington, D. P. (2003). Human development and criminal careers.
Farrington, D. P., D. Jolliffe, R. Loeber, M. Stouthamer-Loeber and L. M. Kalb (2001). "The concentration of
offenders in families, and family criminality in the prediction of boys' delinquency." Journal of
Adolescence, 24(5): 579-596.
77
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Fell, J. C. and C. E. Nash (1989). "The nature of the alcohol problem in US fatal crashes." Health Education &
Behavior, 16(3): 335-343.
Ferguson, S. A. (2003). "Other high-risk factors for young drivers—how graduated licensing does, doesn't, or
could address them." Journal of Safety Research, 34(1): 71-77.
Fergusson, D., N. Swain-Campbell and J. Horwood (2003). "Risky driving behaviour in young people: prevalence,
personal characteristics and traffic accidents." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,
27(3): 337-342.
Finn, P. and B. W. Bragg (1986). "Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers." Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 18(4): 289-298.
Fisher, D. L., N. E. Laurie, R. Glaser, K. Connerney, A. Pollatsek, S. A. Duffy and J. Brock (2002). "Use of a
fixed-base driving simulator to evaluate the effects of experience and PC-based risk awareness training
on drivers' decisions." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
44(2): 287-302.
FORS (1997). Road behaviour of unlicensed motorists involved in fatal crashes. Canberra, Federal Office of
Road Safety.
Foss, R. and A. Goodwin (2003). "Enhancing the effectiveness of graduated driver licensing legislation." Journal
of Safety Research, 34(1): 79-84.
Furnham, A. and J. Saipe (1993). "Personality correlates of convicted drivers." Personality and Individual
Differences, 14(2): 329-336.
Gatti, U., R. E. Tremblay, F. Vitaro and P. McDuff (2005). "Youth gangs, delinquency and drug use: a test of the
selection, facilitation, and enhancement hypotheses." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
46(11): 1178-1190.
Genovés, V. J. G., L. A. Morales and J. S. Meca (2006). "What works for serious juvenile offenders?: a
systematic review." Psicothema, 18(3): 611-619.
Giedd, J. N. (2004). "Structural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain." Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1021(1): 77-85.
Gogtay, N., J. N. Giedd, L. Lusk, K. M. Hayashi, D. Greenstein, A. C. Vaituzis, T. F. Nugent, D. H. Herman, L. S.
Clasen and A. W. Toga (2004). "Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood
through early adulthood." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 101(21): 8174-8179.
Goldfried, M. R. and G. C. Davison (1994). Clinical behavior therapy (exp. ed.). Oxford, England, John Wiley &
Sons.
Goodwin, A. H., R. D. Foss, S. S. Harrell and N. P. O'Brien (2012). "Distracted driving among newly licensed
teen drivers." Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Goodwin, A. H., R. D. Foss and N. P. O'Brien (2012). The Effect of Passengers on Teen Driver Behavior.
Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
78
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Greene, K., M. Krcmar, L. H. Walters, D. L. Rubin and L. Hale (2000). "Targeting adolescent risk-taking
behaviors: the contributions of egocentrism and sensation-seeking." Journal of Adolescence, 23(4):
439-461.
Greenwood, P. (2008). "Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders." The Future of Children,
18(2): 185-210.
Gregersen, N. P. (1996). "Young drivers' overestimation of their own skill—an experiment on the relation
between training strategy and skill." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 28(2): 243-250.
Gregersen, N. P. and H. Y. Berg (1994). "Lifestyle and accidents among young drivers." Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 26(3): 297-303.
Gregersen, N. P. and P. Bjurulf (1996). "Young novice drivers: Towards a model of their accident involvement."
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 28(2): 229-241.
Gregersen, N. P. and A. Nyberg (2002). "Lay instruction during driver training. A study on how it is carried out
and its impact on road safety." VTI rapport (481), Sweden.
Groeger, J. A. and I. Brown (1989). "Assessing one's own and others' driving ability: Influences of sex, age, and
experience." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 21(2): 155-168.
Haworth, N. (1994). Young driver research program: evaluation of Australian graduated licensing scheme.
Canberra, Federal Office of Road Safety.
Heilbrun, K., W. Brock, D. Waite, A. Lanier, M. Schmid, G. Witte, M. Keeney, M. Westendorf, L. Buinavert and M.
Shumate (2000). "Risk Factors for Juvenile Criminal Recidivism The Postrelease Community
Adjustment of Juvenile Offenders." Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(3): 275-291.
Henggeler, S. W. (1996). "Treatment of violent juvenile offenders—we have the knowledge: Comment on
Gorman-Smith et al.(1996)."
Hingson, R., T. Heeren, M. Winter and H. Wechsler (2004). "Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity
among UA college studenets ages 18-14: Changes from 1998 to 2001." Annual Review of Public Health,
26(1): 259-279.
Hingson, R., T. Heeren and R. Zakocs (2001). "Age of Drinking Onset and Involvement in Physical Fights After
Drinking." Pediatrics, 108(4): 872-877.
Hingson, R. W., T. Heeren, R. C. Zakocs, A. Kopstein and H. Wechsler (2002). "Magnitude of alcohol-related
mortality and morbidity among US college students ages 18-24." Journal of Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, 63(2): 136.
Hoge, R. D. (2001). The Juvenile Offender: Theory, Research and Applications, Springer US.
Horswill, M. S., S. A. Marrington, C. M. McCullough, J. Wood, N. A. Pachana, J. McWilliam and M. K. Raikos
(2008). "The hazard perception ability of older drivers." The Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63(4): P212-P218.
79
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Howell, J. (1995). Trends in Juvenile Crime and Youth Violence (From Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and
Chronic Juvenile Offenders, P 1-35, 1995, James C. Howell, Barry Krisberg, et. al., eds), Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hull, M. and R. J. Christie (1993). The Hazard Perception Test: The Geelong Trial & Future Development, Vic
Roads.
Hyde, J. S. (1984). "How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis."
Developmental Psychology, 20(4): 722.
Ivers, R., T. Senserrick, S. Boufous, M. Stevenson, H.-Y. Chen, M. Woodward and R. Norton (2009). "Novice
drivers' risky driving behavior, risk perception, and crash risk: findings from the DRIVE study." American
Journal of Public Health, 99(9): 1638.
Iversen, H. and T. Rundmo (2002). "Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian
drivers." Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8): 1251-1263.
Izzo, R. L. and R. R. Ross (1990). "Meta-Analysis of Rehabilitation Programs for Juvenile Delinquents A Brief
Report." Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1): 134-142.
Jacobsohn, L., J. F. García-España, D. R. Durbin, D. Erkoboni and F. K. Winston (2012). "Adult-supervised
practice driving for adolescent learners: The current state and directions for interventions." Journal of
Safety Research, 43(1): 21-28.
Janke, M. K. (2003). Teen and senior drivers.
Jessor, R. (1987). "Risky driving and adolescent problem behavior: An extension of problem-behavior theory."
Alcohol, Drugs & Driving, 3(3-4): 1-11.
Jessor, R. and S. L. Jessor (1977). "Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of
youth." new York Academic Press.
Jonah, B. A. (1997). "Sensation seeking and risky driving: a review and synthesis of the literature." Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 29(5): 651-665.
Keall, M. D., W. J. Frith and T. L. Patterson (2004). "The influence of alcohol, age and number of passengers on
the night-time risk of driver fatal injury in New Zealand." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(1): 49-61.
Keating, D. P. and B. L. Halpern-Felsher (2008). "Adolescent drivers: a developmental perspective on risk,
proficiency, and safety." American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(3): S272-S277.
Ker, K., I. Roberts, T. Collier, F. Beyer, F. Bunn and C. Frost (2005). "Post-licence driver education for the
prevention of road traffic crashes: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials." Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 37(2): 305-313.
Kerns, S. U. and R. Prinz (2002). "Critical Issues in the Prevention of Violence-Related Behavior in Youth."
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(2): 133-160.
Kolb, D., M. Rubin and J. Mcintyre (1971). Organizational Psychology - An experimental Approach. Englewood
Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
80
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Krahé, B. and I. Fenske (2002). "Predicting aggressive driving behavior: The role of macho personality, age, and
power of car." Aggressive Behavior, 28(1): 21-29.
Krohn, M. D., T. P. Thornberry, C. Rivera and M. Le Blanc (2001). Later Delinquency Careers. Child Delinquents:
Development, Intervention, and Service Needs. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Laapotti, S. and E. Keskinen (2004). "Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers
changed between 1984 and 2000?" Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(4): 577-584.
Lajunen, T., D. Parker and H. Summala (1999). "Does traffic congestion increase driver aggression?"
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2(4): 225-236.
Lam, L. T., R. Norton, M. Woodward, J. Connor and S. Ameratunga (2003). "Passenger carriage and car crash
injury: a comparison between younger and older drivers." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(6): 861867.
Landenberger, N. A. and M. W. Lipsey (2005). "The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for
offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment." Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 1(4): 451-476.
Lee, S. E., S. G. Klauer, E. C. Olsen, B. G. Simons-Morton, T. A. Dingus, D. J. Ramsey and M. C. Ouimet (2008).
"Detection of road hazards by novice teen and experienced adult drivers." Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2078(1): 26-32.
Lewis-Evans, B. (2010). "Crash involvement during the different phases of the New Zealand Graduated Driver
Licensing System (GDLS)." Journal of Safety Research, 41(4): 359-365.
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). "What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with
juvenile delinquents?". in J McGuire (Ed.). What works: Reducing re-offending (pp. 83-127). Chichester,
Wiley.
Lipsey, M. W. (1999). "Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents?" The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 564(1): 142-166.
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). "The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A
Meta-Analytic Overview." Victims & Offenders, 4(2): 124-147.
Lipsey, M. W., G. L. Chapman and N. A. Landenberger (2001). "Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders."
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1): 144-157.
Lipsey, M. W. and D. B. Wilson (1998). "Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of
research." In R Loeber & D Farrington (Eds.). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and
successful interventions (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lipsey, M. W., D. B. Wilson and L. Cothern (2000). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders, US
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Washington, DC.
81
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Littell, J. H. (2005). "Lessons from a systematic review of effects of multisystemic therapy." Children and Youth
Services Review, 27(4): 445-463.
Loeber, R. and D. P. Farrington (2000). "Young children who commit crime: epidemiology, developmental origins,
risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications." Developmental Psychopathology, 12(4): 737762.
Loeber, R., D. P. Farrington and D. Petechuk (2003). "Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention.
Child Delinquency Bulletin Series." Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Loeber, R. and M. Stouthamer-Loeber (1998). "Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common
misconceptions and controversies." American Psychologist, 53(2): 242-259.
Lowenkamp, C. T. and E. J. Latessa (2004). "Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional
interventions can harm low-risk offenders." Topics in Community Corrections, 2004: 3-8.
Ludbrook, M., N. (2012). "Youth Therapeutic Programmes: A Literature Review." New Zealand Department of
Corrections.
Luna, B., K. E. Garver, T. A. Urban, N. A. Lazar and J. A. Sweeney (2004). "Maturation of cognitive processes
from late childhood to adulthood." Child Development, 75(5): 1357-1372.
Lund, A. K. and A. F. Williams (1985). "A review of the literature evaluating the defensive driving course."
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 17(6): 449-460.
MacLeod,
D.
(2011).
"TAC
The
Ripple
Effeect
Inspiration
Room.",
http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2011/tac-/the-ripple-effect, viewed 16th July, 2014.
from
Mann, R. E., G. Leigh, E. R. Vingilis and K. de Genova (1983). "A critical review on the effectiveness of drinkingdriving rehabilitation programmes." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 15(6): 441-461.
Marques, P., A. S. Tippetts, R. B. Voas, E. Danseco and D. J. Beirness (2000). Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic
Safety-T 2000: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety,
May 22–26, 2000.
Massie, D. L., P. E. Green and K. L. Campbell (1997). "Crash involvement rates by driver gender and the role of
average annual mileage." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 29(5): 675-685.
Masten, S. V. and R. C. Peck (2004). "Problem driver remediation: A meta-analysis of the driver improvement
literature." Journal of Safety Research, 35(4): 403-425.
Maycock, G. (2001). "Novice driver accidents and the driving test." TRL REPORT 527.
Mayhew, D. R., H. M. Simpson and A. Pak (2003). "Changes in collision rates among novice drivers during the
first months of driving." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(5): 683-691.
McCartt, A. T., L. A. Hellinga and B. B. Kirley (2009). "Effects of 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age Laws on
Alcohol-Related Driving in the United States." Young Impaired Drivers: 124.
McCartt, A. T. and V. S. Northrup (2004). "Factors related to seat belt use among fatally injured teenage drivers."
Journal of Safety Research, 35(1): 29-38.
82
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
McCartt, A. T., V. I. Shabanova and W. A. Leaf (2003). "Driving experience, crashes and traffic citations of
teenage beginning drivers." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(3): 311-320.
McCulloch, A. and M. McMurran (2007). "The features of a good offender treatment programme manual: A
Delphi survey of experts." Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(3): 265-274.
McKay, M. P., J. H. Coben and G. L. Larkin (2003). Driving beliefs and behaviors of novice teen drivers and their
parents: implications for teen driver crash risk. 47th Annual Proceedings, Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Lisbon, Portugal.
McKenna, F. P. and J. Crick (1994). "Hazard perception in drivers: a methodology for testing and training." TRL
Contractor Report(313).
McKnight, A. J. and A. S. McKnight (2000). The behavioral contributors to highway crashes of youthful drivers.
44th Annual Proceedings, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Chicago, Il.
McKnight, A. J. and A. S. McKnight (2003). "Young novice drivers: careless or clueless?" Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 35(6): 921-925.
McKnight, A. J. and A. S. Tippetts (1997). "Accident prevention versus recidivism prevention courses for repeat
traffic offenders." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 29(1): 25-31.
Mcmillen, D. L., M. G. Pang, E. Wells-Parker and B. J. Anderson (1991). "Behavior and personality traits among
DUI arrestees, nonarrested impaired drivers, and nonimpaired drivers." Substance Use & Misuse, 26(2):
227-235.
Ministry of Transport NZ (2013). Young driver crash factsheet 2013.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). "Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental
taxonomy." Psychological Review, 100(4): 674.
Møller, M. (2004). "An explorative study of the relationship between lifestyle and driving behaviour among young
drivers." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(6): 1081-1088.
Møller, M. and N. P. Gregersen (2008). "Psychosocial function of driving as predictor of risk-taking behaviour."
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(1): 209-215.
Moore, K. A., M. Harrison, M. S. Young and E. Ochshorn (2008). "A cognitive therapy treatment program for
repeat DUI offenders." Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(6): 539-545.
Morris, L., J. Sallybanks, K. Willis and T. Makkai (2004). "Sport, physical activity and antisocial behaviour in
youth." Youth Studies Australia, 23(1): 47.
Mourant, R. R. and T. H. Rockwell (1972). "Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced drivers."
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 14(4): 325-335.
Newman, M., C. Vigurs, A. Perry, G. Hallam, E. Schertler, M. Johnson and R. Wall (2012). "A systematic review
of selected interventions to reduce juvenile re-offending. Technical Report."
NHTSA (2008). "Traffic safety facts: Lives saved in 2007 by restraint use and minimum drinking age laws." US
Department of Transportation. Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
83
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Nichais, J. L. and H. L. Ross (1991). "The effectiveness of legal sanctions in dealing with drinking drivers."
Journal of Safety Research, 22(2): 117.
Nyberg, A. and I. Engström (1999). "Insight - An Evaluation: An interview survey into driving test pupils
perception of the 'insight' training concept at the Storaholm Driver Training Centre." VTI rapport(443A).
OECD (2006). Young drivers: The road to safety. Policy Brief and Summary Document. OECD, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Parker, D., J. T. Reason, A. S. Manstead and S. G. Stradling (1995). "Driving errors, driving violations and
accident involvement." Ergonomics, 38(5): 1036-1048.
Patil, S. M., J. T. Shope, T. E. Raghunathan and C. R. Bingham (2006). "The role of personality characteristics in
young adult driving." Traffic Injury Prevention, 7(4): 328-334.
Patterson, G. R. (1993). "Orderly change in a stable world: The antisocial trait as a chimera." Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61(6): 911.
Pearson, F. S., D. S. Lipton, C. M. Cleland and D. S. Yee (2002). "The effects of behavioral/cognitive-behavioral
programs on recidivism." Crime & Delinquency, 48(3): 476-496.
Pelz, D. C. and E. Krupat (1974). "Caution profile and driving record of undergraduate males." Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 6(1): 45-58.
Peräaho, M., E. Keskinen and M. Hatakka (2003). "Driver competence in a hierarchical perspective; Implications
for driver education." Report to Swedish Road Administration.
Polaschek, D. L. L. (2011). "Many sizes fit all: A preliminary framework for conceptualizing the development and
provision of cognitive–behavioral rehabilitation programs for offenders." Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 16(1): 20-35.
Pollatsek, A., V. Narayanaan, A. Pradhan and D. L. Fisher (2006). "Using eye movements to evaluate a PCbased risk awareness and perception training program on a driving simulator." Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(3): 447-464.
Popkin, C. L. (1991). "Drinking and driving by young females." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 23(1): 37-44.
Pradhan, A. K., K. R. Hammel, R. DeRamus, A. Pollatsek, D. A. Noyce and D. L. Fisher (2005). "Using eye
movements to evaluate effects of driver age on risk perception in a driving simulator." Human Factors,
47(4): 840-852.
Preusser, D. F., A. F. Williams and A. K. Lund (1991). "Characteristics of belted and unbelted drivers." Accident
Analysis & Prevention 23(6): 475-482.
Quimby, A. and G. Watts (1981). Human factors and driving performance. Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport and
Road Research Laboratory
Rajalin, S. (1994). "The connection between risky driving and involvement in fatal accidents." Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 26(5): 555-562.
84
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Regan, M. A. and E. Mitsopoulos (2001). Understanding passenger influences on driver behaviour: Implications
for road safety and recommendations for countermeasure development. Monash University Accident
Research Centre (Report 180)..
Regan, M. A., T. J. Triggs and S. T. Godley (2000). Simulator-based evaluation of the DriveSmart novice driver
CD-ROM training product. Road Safety: Research, Policing & Education Conference: Handbook and
proceedings.
Reid, J. B., G. R. Patterson and J. Snyder (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A
developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington, DC, US, American Psychological
Association.
Renge, K. (1998). "Drivers' hazard and risk perception, confidence in safe driving, and choice of speed." IATSS
Research, 22(2): 103-110.
Retting, R. A. and A. F. Williams (1996). "Characteristics of red light violators: Results of a field investigation."
Journal of Safety Research, 27(1): 9-15.
Rice, T. M., C. Peek-Asa and J. F. Kraus (2004). "Effects of the California graduated driver licensing program."
Journal of Safety Research, 35(4): 375-381.
Robins, L. N. (1966). Deviant Children Grown Up: A Sociological and Psychiatric Study of Sociopathic
Personality, William & Wilkins Company.
Rothengatter, T. (1997). "Psychological aspects of road user behaviour." Applied Psychology, 46(3): 223-234.
RTSSV (2004). Traffic offenders' program policy, Road Trauma Support Services Victoria.
RTSSV (2010a). Sessional Educator employee induction manual, Road Trauma Support Services Victoria.
RTSSV (2013). Annual Report 2012-2013. Melbourne, Road Trauma Support Services Victoria.
Rucklidge, J. J., A. P. McLean and P. Bateup (2013). "Criminal Offending and Learning Disabilities in New
Zealand Youth: Does Reading Comprehension Predict Recidivism?" Crime & Delinquency, 59(8): 12631286.
Sarkar, S. and M. Andreas (2004). "Acceptance of and engagement in risky driving behaviors by teenagers."
Adolescence, 39(156): 687-700.
Scott-Parker, B., B. Watson, M. J. King and M. K. Hyde (2012). "Confirmatory factor analysis of the Behaviour of
Young Novice Drivers Scale (BYNDS)." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 49: 385-391.
Senserrick, T. M. (2006). "Reducing young driver road trauma: guidance and optimism for the future." Injury
Prevention, 12(1): i56-i60.
Senserrick, T. M. and G. C. Swinburne (2001). Evaluation of an insight driver-training program for young drivers,
Monash University Accident Research Centre (Report 186).
Sheehan, M., B. Watson, C. Schonfeld, A. Wallace and B. Partridge (2005). Drink driver rehabilitation and
education in Victoria, CARRS-Q (Report 64).
85
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Shinar, D. (1998). "Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation." Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(2): 137-160.
Shinar, D. and R. Compton (2004). "Aggressive driving: an observational study of driver, vehicle, and situational
variables." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(3): 429-437.
Shope, J. T. (2006). "Influences on youthful driving behavior and their potential for guiding interventions to
reduce crashes." Injury Prevention, 12(1): i9-i14.
Shope, J. T., L. J. Molnar, M. R. Elliott and P. F. Waller (2001). "Graduated driver licensing in Michigan: early
impact on motor vehicle crashes among 16-year-old drivers." JAMA, 286(13): 1593-1598.
Simons-Morton, B. (2011). Adolescent Driving Behavior: A Developmental Challenge. In B. B. Brown and M. J.
Prinstein (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Adolescence (pp. 38-47). San Diego, Academic Press.
Simons-Morton, B. G., J. L. Hartos, W. A. Leaf and D. F. Preusser (2006). "Increasing Parent Limits on Novice
Young Drivers Cognitive Mediation of the Effect of Persuasive Messages." Journal of Adolescent
Research, 21(1): 83-105.
Simons-Morton, B. G., M. C. Ouimet, Z. Zhang, S. E. Klauer, S. E. Lee, J. Wang, P. S. Albert and T. A. Dingus
(2011). "Crash and risky driving involvement among novice adolescent drivers and their parents."
American Journal Public Health, 101(12): 2362–2367.
Simourd, L. and D. A. Andrews (1994). Correlates of delinquency: A look at gender differences. Forum on
Corrections Research.
Snyder, H. N. (2001). Law enforcement and juvenile crime, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Stattin, H. and D. Magnusson (1991). "Stability and change in criminal behaviour up to age 30." British Journal of
Criminology, 31(4): 327-346.
Steinberg, L. (2008). "A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking." Developmental Review,
28(1): 78-106.
Stevens, A., I. Kessler and B. Gladstone (2006). "Review of good practices in preventing juvenile crime in the
European Union." European Crime Prevention Network.
Tannahill, J. and M. Smith (1990). "State's experience with inexperienced drivers: update on status of provisional
licensing." Traffic Safety 21: 18-21.
Taxman, F. S. and A. Piquero (1998). "On preventing drunk driving recidivism: an examination of rehabilitation
and punishment approaches." Journal of Criminal Justice, 26(2): 129-143.
Tin, S. T., S. Ameratunga and P. Watson (2008). "Riding in a motor vehicle with a driver under the influence of
alcohol and drinking patterns: Findings from a national survey of New Zealand youth." Australasian
Epidemiologist, 15(1): 18.
86
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Tronsmoen, T. (2011). "Differences between formal and informal practical driver training as experienced by the
learners themselves." Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14(3): 176188.
Tsai, V. W., C. L. Anderson and F. E. Vaca (2008). "Young female drivers in fatal crashes: recent trends, 1995–
2004." Traffic Injury Prevention, 9(1): 65-69.
Turner, C. and R. McClure (2004). "Quantifying the role of risk-taking behaviour in causation of serious road
crash-related injury." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(3): 383-389.
Turner, J., J. Bauerle and A. Keller (2011). "Alcohol-related vehicular death rates for college students in the
commonwealth of Virginia." Journal of American College Health, 59(4): 323-326.
Twisk, D. (1996). Young driver accidents in Europe, magnitude and nature. New to the Road: Reducing the Risks
for Young Motorists. Proceedings of the First Annual International Symposium of the Youth
Enhancement Service.
Ulleberg, P. and T. Rundmo (2003). "Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving
behaviour among young drivers." Safety Science, 41(5): 427-443.
van Beurden, E., A. Zask, L. Brooks and R. Dight (2005). "Heavy episodic drinking and sensation seeking in
adolescents as predictors of harmful driving and celebrating behaviors: implications for prevention."
Journal of Adolescent Health, 37(1): 37-43.
Vassallo, S., D. Smart, A. Sanson, W. Harrison, A. Harris, S. Cockfield and A. McIntyre (2007). "Risky driving
among young Australian drivers: Trends, precursors and correlates." Accident Analysis & Prevention,
39(3): 444-458.
Vavrik, J. (1997). "Brief Report: Personality and risk-taking: a brief report on adolescent male drivers." Journal of
Adolescence, 20(4): 461-465.
Waller (1993). "Graduated licensing: Rx for motor vehicle injury prevention." Texas Driver and Traffic Safety
Education Association Journal.
Wallis, T. S. and M. S. Horswill (2007). "Using fuzzy signal detection theory to determine why experienced and
trained drivers respond faster than novices in a hazard perception test." Accident Analysis & Prevention,
39(6): 1177-1185.
Washington, S., R. J. Cole and S. B. Herbel (2011). "European advanced driver training programs: Reasons for
optimism." IATSS Research, 34(2): 72-79.
Watson, B. C. (1997). The crash involvement of unlicensed drivers in Queensland. Proceedings, Road Safety
Research and Enforcement Conference. Hobart, Tasmania, Department of Transport and Tasmania
Police.
Watson, B. C. (2003). "The road safety implications of unlicensed driving: A survey of unlicensed drivers." ATSB,
Canberra.
Watson, B. C. (2012). "The prevalence and crash involvement of unlicensed drivers in Queensland."
Proceedings, Canadian Multi-Disciplinary Road Safety Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
87
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Weintraub, K. J. and M. Gold (1991). "Monitoring and delinquency." Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 1
268-281.
Wells-Parker, E. and R. Bangert-Drowns (1995). "Final results from a meta-analysis of remedial interventions
with drink/drive offenders." Addiction, 90(7): 907-926.
Whelan, M., J. A. Groeger, T. M. Senserrick and T. J. Triggs (2002). Alternative methods of measuring hazard
perception: Sensitivity to driving experience, RS2002 Road Safety: Research, Policing & Education:
Conference Proceedings (CD-ROM). Adelaide, South Australia: Causal Productions.
Williams, A. (1998). Risky driving behavior among adolescents. New perspectives on adolescent risk behaviour.
New York, Cambridge University Press: 289–298.
Williams, A. F. (1999). "Graduated licensing comes to the United States." Injury Prevention, 5(2): 133-135.
Williams, A. F. (2001). Teenage passengers in motor vehicle crashes: A summary of current researcrh: 8 p.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Virginia.
Williams, A. F. (2003). "Teenage drivers: patterns of risk." Journal of Safety Research, 34(1): 5-15.
Williams, A. F., R. S. Karpf and P. L. Zador (1983). "Variations in minimum licensing age and fatal motor vehicle
crashes." American Journal of Public Health, 73(12): 1401-1403.
Williams, A. F., D. F. Preusser, R. G. Ulmer and H. B. Weinstein (1995). "Characteristics of Fatal Crashes of 16Year-Old Drivers: Implications for Licensure Policies." Journal of Public Health Policy, 16(3): 347-360.
Williams, A. F., B. C. Tefft and J. G. Grabowski (2012). "Graduated driver licensing research, 2010-present."
Journal of Safety Research, 43(3): 195-203.
Willis, C., S. Lybrand and N. Bellamy (2009). "Alcohol ignition interlock programs for reducing drink driving
recidivism (Review)". Cochrane Library London: John Wiley & Sons.
Wilson, D. B., L. A. Bouffard and D. L. Mackenzie (2005). "A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented,
cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders." Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(2): 172-204.
Windle, M. (1994). "A study of friendship characteristics and problem behaviors among middle adolescents."
Child Development, 65(6): 1764-1777.
World Youth Report (2003). World Youth Report - The global Situation of young people. United Nations.
Wundersitz, L. and T. P. Hutchinson (2006). South Australia's Driver Intervention Program: Participant
characteristics, best practice discussion and literature review. Adelaide, Centre for Automotive Safety
Research.
Yagil, D. (1998). "I’m OK ‐ you’re not OK." Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,
21(2): 339-353.
Young, K., M. Regan and M. Hammer (2007). "Driver distraction: A review of the literature." In, I Falks, M Regan,
M Stevenson, J Brown, A Porter & D Irwin (Eds). Distracted Driving (pp. 379-405). Sydney, NSW.
Australasian College of Road Safety.
88
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program
Yu, J. (1994). "Punishment celerity and severity: Testing a specific deterrence model on drunk driving
recidivism." Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(4): 355-366.
Zador, P. L., S. A. Krawchuk and R. B. Voas (2000). "Alcohol-related relative risk of driver fatalities and driver
involvement in fatal crashes in relation to driver age and gender: an update using 1996 data." Journal of
Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 61(3): 387.
Zhang, W., K. Gkritza, N. Keren and S. Nambisan (2011). "Age and gender differences in conviction and crash
occurrence subsequent to being directed to Iowa's driver improvement program." Journal of Safety
Research, 42(5): 359-365.
89
© Monash University Accident Research Centre
Understanding ‘best practice’ and the DTL program