Effectiveness of Penitentiary Psychoeducational Interventions in Road Safety

Introduction

Criminal policy measures in the area of road safety have continued to evolve in a society where risks on the roads remain present. The World Health Organization has estimated that worldwide 1.19 million people die each year in road traffic accidents and between 20 and 50 million are seriously injured (World Health Organization, 2023). In Europe, the European Commission has estimated around 20,600 road accidents fatalities in 2022, an increase of 3% on 2021 (European Commission, 2023) and alcohol-related road fatalities accounted for 25% of all deaths (European Commission, 2024). According to the Spanish Directorate of Traffic (Dirección General de Tráfico [DGT, 2023]), the figures have increased recently. Thus, in 2022, road accident fatalities (1,746) rose by 213 compared to the previous year, as well as serious injuries (8,502), an increase of 780, which are alarming data. Most road accidents are caused by human behaviour, based on drivers’ own decisions (Montoro et al., 2000). The main factors involved include distractions, excessive speed, and driving under the influence (DUI; DGT, 2023).

Different studies have assessed the effectiveness of the penalty point system in reducing traffic accidents (Beke & Blomeyer, 2016; Novoa et al., 2010). The penalty point system widespread use in Spain and other European countries is based on the assumption that this measure is effective in preventing drivers from committing traffic offences and ensuring greater security. Since the most significant reform in road safety came into force (Ley Orgánica 15/2007, de 30 de noviembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal en materia de seguridad vial) in order to reduce the aforementioned behaviours, the number of convictions has increased exponentially. In line with the Spanish General Prosecutor’s Office (Fiscalía General del Estado [FGE, 2023]), in 2022, 104,660 convictions were handed down for road offences, accounting for 36% of all convictions, with even higher figures than in previous years, and the majority caused by DUI.

Due to this phenomenon, criminal policies regarding road safety continued to evolve, with a further reform of the Spanish Criminal Code (Ley Orgánica 5/2010, de 22 de junio, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal). As a result of this, there are currently three types of penalties that can be served: prison sentences, fines (economic penalties), and community service. In this regard, judges may choose one of the three, in conjunction with the penalty of deprivation of the right to drive. Consequently, the Spanish Code allows prison sentences to be reserved as the most serious penalty for specific cases. In addition to this reform a further update of the Criminal Code (Ley Orgánica 1/2015, de 30 de marzo, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal) concerning the application of custodial sentences was developed, allowing prison sentences to be suspended on the condition of participation in Road Safety Education and Driver Intervention (RSE&DI) programmes. The introduction of all these policies has seen an increase in community service orders, with a total number of 24,001, in addition to 486 RSE&DI programmes, being handed out in 2019 in conjunction with the conditional suspension of custodial sentences (FGE, 2020). In 2021, 581 RSE&DI programmes (FGE, 2022) and in 2022, 599 RSE&DI programmes were conducted (FGE, 2023). Once again, these figures are higher than in previous years.

In order to comply with a large number of community service orders for crimes against road safety, as a result of Instruction I-2/2010 from the Secretaría General de Instituciones Penitenciarias (2010), the Prison Administration created a specific road safety intervention programme to address sentences through community service orders (with a duration of up to 60 days), the TASEVAL, in collaboration with the DGT and the Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety of the University of Valencia (INTRAS) (Montoro et al., 2010). It was based on an approach targeting re-education and awareness-raising, with the aim of making convicts or sentenced individuals aware of the consequences of their behaviour. Likewise, in order to handle more serious sentences through community service orders (lasting more than 60 days) or suspended prison sentences, another programme (PROSEVAL) has been in use since 2016 (Lijarcio et al., 2016), based on a psychotherapeutic approach with the aim of reintegrating those convicted and promoting a change in maladaptive behaviours while driving.

Recidivism in Road Safety Interventions for Persistent Traffic Offenders

Over time it has been proven that in subjects with prior crimes against road safety, as well as drivers with previous fines or penalty points, the probability of future offences increases (Elliott et al., 2000; Sagberg & Ingebrigtsen, 2018). Martí-Belda et al. (2019) showed the importance of alcohol-related issues among traffic offenders, especially among those disqualified by a court conviction. Likewise, alcohol in relation to other psychological disorders as signs of paranoid, antisocial, impulsive, borderline, and anxious personality traits can contribute to explaining this criminal behaviour (Escamilla-Robla et al., 2022). Therefore, alcohol abuse is a predictor of recidivism in road safety offences (Castro et al., 2023; Le Lièvre et al., 2019), as are consumption disorders paired with reckless driving (Padilla et al., 2018). In regard to gender groups, the prevalence of predicting drivers’ risk perception in relation to recidivism differs between male and female drivers (Lijarcio et al., 2022). The courts have been using different punitive measures to tackle these offences. Positive effects in reducing recidivism have been found for the impounding of drink-driving offenders’ vehicles (permitted in some states), particularly in relation to recidivism for speeding offences (Watson et al., 2020). In this study, lower rates of offence were seen during the impoundment period compared to pre-impoundment, post-licence restoration, and post-ban periods. In parallel, consistent evidence points towards the intensity of DUI enforcement—such as prison sentences and the suspension of licences—as the strongest deterrent to potential drunk drivers, accounting for more than 75% of the impact on a driver’s decision to drink and drive (Yao et al., 2021). In comparison, the effect of ignition interlock programmes—which are relatively short—on the involvement of DUI offenders in accidents is substantially limited; but those covering all offenders have proved to be an effective countermeasure against driving while impaired, reducing the number of impaired drivers in fatal crashes (Teoh et al., 2021).

One example in particular (McCartt et al., 2018) indicated that states which apply more stringent interlock requirements for first-time offenders are able to significantly reduce DUI recidivism. Beck et al. (2020) determined that those with more serious drinking patterns and at greater risk of recidivism are more likely to embrace the positive aspects of the interlock, which promotes awareness of and reminders to avoid drinking and driving. A Dutch alcohol interlock programme showed effectiveness in reducing recidivism within a multi-component approach in which a built-in rehabilitation programme and extensive behavioural feedback on alcohol use play an important role (Blom & Blokdijk, 2021). What is clear, in terms of driving while impaired, is that the early identification of DUI recidivism may be important in preventing recurrent DUI behaviour in subjects at higher risk of being involved in crashes than first-time offenders (Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). Chaudhary et al. (2011) observed that after three years of follow-up, the rate of recidivism for DUI convictions was recorded at 10.4% after their first disposition. Apart from alcohol, tobacco use has also been shown as a variable affecting recidivism. Beccegato et al. (2021) suggested that heavy smoking may be a predictor of risky alcohol intake leading to DUI. Smoking habits appeared to be related to a judgment of unfitness to drive, thus suggesting a possible relationship between tobacco use and other substance use disorders. This data suggests the advisability of evaluating subjects with DUI paying attention because tobacco could hint at a possible substance use disorder or tendency toward risky driving behaviour. In parallel, Bouffard et al. (2010) studied different types of interventions, establishing a follow-up period of 12 to 18 months.

In this study, rates of recidivism due to new arrests for any offence ranged from 27.0% to 57.1%. However, new arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol varied between 6.7% and 18%. All in all, these rates may indicate the suitability of psychotherapeutic programmes and emphasis on careful driving in road safety re-education, awareness-raising initiatives, and the process of reissuing driving licences, considering that it is evident that there are benefits in developing psychoeducational intervention programmes to reduce recidivism. Nevertheless, despite these timely interventions, the effectiveness of road safety intervention programmes is barely demonstrated. The Subdirección General de Medio Abierto y Penas y Medidas Alternativas promoted the study of the efficacy of TASEVAL and PROSEVAL intervention programmes in collaboration with the European University of Valencia (EUV), in order to provide more evidence for evaluations of the implementation of re-education and re-socialisation interventions in road safety. The first objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of RSE&DI programmes by analysing the data on the recidivism of crimes against road safety of those convicted individuals who underwent the interventions compared to a control group. The second objective aimed to study the changes in alcohol and drug consumption in the sample of participants who attended the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL programmes. The third objective was to analyse the sociodemographic, criminological, and accident profile of road offenders sentenced to community services or prison sentence suspensions.

Method

Participants

For the first objective, recidivism data were available for a total of 57,532 participants in community service orders of up to 60 days’ duration (CS-60). One group completed the TASEVAL programme (n = 19,976), and another group performed different community services, unrelated to road safety (n = 37,556). In parallel, recidivism data were analysed for a total of 5,765 participants with community service orders of over 60 days or suspended sentences (CS+60). One group completed the PROSEVAL intervention programme (n = 648), and another group performed different, non-road safety-related community service (n = 5,117).

For the second and third objectives of the study, we had a total of 805 participants (87% male, M_age = 38.16, SD = 12.51) who were assigned, on the one hand, to community service orders lasting up to 60 days (CS-60; n = 657), participating in the TASEVAL intervention programme (87% men, M_age = 38.30, SD = 12.70); and, on the other hand, to community service orders lasting more than 60 days or prison suspensions (CS+60; n = 148), participating in the PROSEVAL intervention programme (90% men; M_age = 39.66, SD = 11.59). Regarding the second objective, we only obtained post-test scores from 32 participants (96% men; M_age = 39.38, SD = 12.92).

Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the total and subsamples.

This study procedure was approved by the Deputy Directorate-General of Open Regime and Alternative Measures and European University of Valencia (020020190007). All participants were properly informed about the study and consented to participate complying with the ethical guidelines set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (2013).

TASEVAL Intervention Programme

The TASEVAL programme consists of a set of awareness and re-education activities and theoretical contents, directly related to the nature of the offence committed, that is, concerning traffic safety. It is administered to drivers sentenced to community services for less than 60 days for crimes against road safety (excessive speeding, driving with low levels of alcohol and drugs, driving without a license, that is, minor crimes against road safety). The general objective of the intervention is to reduce recidivism. The specific objectives are to raise awareness about the problem and the direct consequences of a driver’s behaviour in traffic accidents, and to create a predisposition towards changing inadequate beliefs. It consists of 8 face-to-face sessions of 4 hours each, divided into 3 phases: a reception phase, in which the TASEVAL programme is presented along with an explanation of basic aspects; another theoretical/practical training phase, where knowledge of awareness about traffic accidents is given and aspects related to alcohol/drugs and driving, speed, reckless driving, distractions, restraint systems, social values on the road, and coping resources in certain situations during driving are explained; and finally, an exit phase, where conclusions and farewells are established (Montoro et al., 2010).

PROSEVAL Intervention Programme

The PROSEVAL programme was developed with the purpose of establishing a road safety intervention within the set of specific programmes developed in the field of sentencing alternatives to imprisonment. This programme is administered to those drivers sentenced to community services for more than 60 days or suspended imprisonment (higher rates of speeding, driving under high rates of alcohol and drugs, driving without licence i.e., serious crimes against road safety or re-offenders of other crimes against road safety). The essential purpose is to reintegrate individuals convicted of the most serious crimes against road safety and reduce their recidivism. The intervention is divided into two phases: the first phase, with an educational focus consisting of the TASEVAL programme, and the second phase, with a psychotherapeutic approach, including a set of techniques with a cognitive-behavioural approach aimed at intervening with underlying mental processes at a cognitive, emotional, and behavioural level (Ruiz et al., 2012). This last phase consists of 42 hours, distributed in weekly sessions of 2 hours each, divided into three parts: initiation, with an individual interview to get to know different aspects of the participants; a second part, consisting of 8 modules in 19 sessions focusing on the initial motivation for change, decision-making, risk perception, emotions, impulsivity, psychophysiology, and human safety; it also includes social skills on the road and a review of thoughts, emotions, and behaviours, ending with a summary of everything learned; the last part includes a follow-up session one month after the end of the programme (Lijarcio et al., 2016).

Variables and Measurement Instruments

Socio-Demographic Variables

The following socio-demographic information was collected using an ad-hoc questionnaire: age, gender (male or female), marital status (single, in a stable relationship, divorced, widowed), number of children, education level (no schooling, primary education, secondary education, higher education), and employment status (unemployed, student, employed, self-employed, retired).

Criminal Variables

The following information on accident rates and criminal records was collected using an ad-hoc questionnaire: traffic accidents (number and causes), more than one offence recorded for the same event (yes or no), first crimes against road safety (primary or recidivist), previous attendance on a road safety programme (yes or no), criminal record other than for crimes against road safety (yes or no), knowledge of the offence (yes or no), and administrative offence records (accumulation of driving licence penalty points—yes or no; disqualification of driving licence—yes or no; and type of traffic infractions).

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; World Health Organization et al., 2001)

The AUDIT consists of a 10-item Likert scale (from 0 = never to 4 = daily or almost daily) that assesses the level of unhealthy alcohol use (e.g., “How often during the last year have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started?”). Scores in the range 0-7 refer to abstinence or low risk of drinking, from 8 to 15 to alcohol use in excess, between 16 and 19 to harmful and hazardous drinking, and 20 or higher to alcohol dependence. The reported reliability, test-retest (stability) was excellent, r = .86.

Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10; Skinner, 1982)

The DAST-10 is a 10-item scale in a yes (1) or no (0) response format that assesses problematic drug use (e.g., “Have you used drugs other than those required for medical reasons?”). An overall score (from 0 to 10) is obtained by adding up the scores on all items. The higher the score, the greater the problem of drug use/dependence (0 = low risk/abstinence; 1-2 = risky consumption; 3-5 = harmful; 6+ = dependence). We used the Spanish validated version (Pérez et al., 2010), reporting an excellent reliability, α = .89.

Design and Procedure

For the first objective, a longitudinal design was employed, with a quantitative retroactive perspective, using the raw data provided by the Subdirección General de Medio Abierto y Penas y Medidas Alternativas. Use was made of data on people sentenced for crimes against road safety who attended community service (TASEVAL and PROSEVAL during 2016-17) and data on their recidivism until April 2019, all of them being study groups. As control groups, data about people who had been convicted of crimes against road safety and who had performed different community service, unrelated to road safety—on the same dates—were used (matched groups). To carry out this part of the study, a data processing, custody, and protection protocol was maintained, agreed, and duly signed by both entities (Subdirección General de Medio Abierto y Penas y Medidas Alternativas and EUV).

For the second and third objective, a sample of 805 subjects was obtained from Instituciones Penitenciarias [Spanish Penitentiary Institution] of people convicted of crimes against road safety across the entire national territory where community service sentences are executed, selected by agreement with the Subdirección General de Medio Abierto y Penas y Medidas Alternativas. The selection criteria were those sites that involved the TASEVAL and/or PROSEVAL programmes with the largest number of attendees, located in Algeciras, Alicante, Almería, Cáceres, Castellón, Ciudad Real, Córdoba, Coruña, Huelva, Ibiza, La Rioja, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Madrid (Alcalá de Henares-V. Kent), Málaga, Navarra, Palma de Mallorca, Pontevedra, Salamanca, Sevilla, Morón de la Frontera, Tenerife, and Valencia.

Participants served their sentence for crimes against road safety. They were distributed in two differentiated groups, one drawn from those serving 60 days as community service and another one serving over 60 days as community service or receiving suspensions of custodial sentences. Once the sample was selected and the suitable instruments were chosen and assembled in a protocol, they were sent to the Subdirección General de Medio Abierto y Penas y Medidas Alternativas to centralise and distribute them to the participants according to the established guidelines and deadlines. At first, before starting the road safety interventions or the community services only, the protocol was passed on to the participants and with this the sociodemographic, criminological, and accident profile was extracted.

To achieve the second objective, the previous sample was used, but only with those attending the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL programmes, obtaining fewer subjects in this case. We worked from a longitudinal design of repeated measures, pretest and post-test, before and after the intervention, to evaluate the change produced in the variables measured in this study on alcohol and drug consumption. All these protocols were returned to the EUV research team to proceed with data processing.

Data Analysis

First, the socio-demographic and criminological data were descriptively analysed (mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage). The internal consistency of the scales was established by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, being adequate above .80 in basic research and above .90 in applied settings (Nunnally, 1978). Associations between criminological data and type of community service (community service orders with a duration of up to 60 days [CS-60] or more [CS+60]) were examined with a Chi-squared Test for Independence (χ²; Fisher’s exact test). This test is used to explore the association between two categorical variables. Effect size was measured with phi and the magnitude of the effect with the Effect Incremental Index (EII; Arias et al., 2020) by applying the formula 1 – ((p₁ – p₂)/p₁) where p₁ is the observed probability of recidivism after the CS-60 or CS+60 intervention programme and p₂ the probability of recidivism after the PROSEVAL or TASEVAL intervention programme. The effect is interpreted as significant if the lower limit of the 95% CI is above .05. A paired samples t-test was conducted in order to study the efficacy of the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL programmes on the participants’ AUDIT and DAST-10 scores. Scores before and after the interventions were compared on AUDIT (hazardous alcohol use) and DAST-10 (problematic drug use). Cohen’s d with Lipsey and Wilson’s (2001) formula for repeated measures was used as an estimator of effect size, estimating the magnitude with r a derivation of the BESD and the inefficacy with the probability of a superiority score (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982; Vilariño et al., 2022). Finally, the effect of the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL programmes compared to CS-60 and CS+60, respectively, on participants’ recidivism was studied using a Chi-squared Test of Independence as well (χ²; Fisher’s exact test). Specifically, this test was used to explore the relationship between recidivism (yes or no) and interventions (TASEVAL/PROSEVAL or CS-60/CS+60).

Results

Criminal Profile

Regarding the criminological profile of the participants, 429 (53.5%) were convicted for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, 331 (41.3%) for offences related to driving without a licence, and 42 (5.2%) for speeding offences, reckless driving, or for refusing to take a drug test. Additionally, 93 (11.6%) had committed more than one crime against road safety when they were sentenced to a community service order at the time of the study, 280 participants (37.0%) were recidivist road safety offenders, while 263 (35.0%) had received a sentence for other types of offences, and 83 participants (11.0%) had received a sentence for gender violence. Another interesting fact was that 103 participants (13.8%) had no knowledge of the offence and had criminal records for offences that were not related to crimes against road safety. Moreover, it was the first time that 90 participants (11.9%) had been ordered to participate in a road safety programme.

From the full sample, 430 participants (57.0%) had been involved in traffic accidents, of whom 47.1% were involved in one accident, 33.0% in two, and almost 20.0% in three or more traffic accidents as drivers. Participants reported that alcohol/drug use (23.3%) and distractions (13.4%) were the two main causes of such accidents, followed by external causes (7.5%), personal problems (4.2%), recklessness/aggressiveness (2.7%), inadequate speed (1.0%), sleeping at the wheel (0.4%), and other causes (3.1%). Three hundred sixty (49.0%) participants had previously received penalty points on their driving licence, and 230 (31.6%) had had their driving licence withdrawn. Participants reported that the types of infractions for which they had received penalty points were for alcohol/drug use (n = 270, 45.0%), an accumulation of more than one traffic offence (n = 178, 29.7%), excessive speed (n = 24, 4.0%), distractions (n = 20, 3.3%), reckless driving (n = 15, 2.5%), driving without wearing a seat belt (n = 12, 2.0%), failure to obey other traffic rules (n = 7, 1.2%), and other causes (n = 74, 12.3%).

As shown in Table 2, there was a statistically significant association between the length of community service (CS-60 or CS+60) and the presence of more than one offence in the same wrongful act (χ² = 16.62, p < .001; φ = .15), the first crimes against road safety (χ² = 22.65, p < .001; φ = .18), previous attendance on a road safety programme (χ² = 6.46, p = .011; φ = -.10), the existence of criminal records other than crimes against road safety (χ² = 26.11, p < .001 ; φ = -.19), and prior disqualification from driving (χ² = 10.03, p = .002; φ = -.12).

Effects of the TASEVAL/PROSEVAL Intervention Programmes

The results showed (see Table 3) significant effects of the TASEVAL programme in reducing alcohol use. This emphasises that the participation in the TASEVAL intervention programme reduces alcohol use by 11.9% (r = -.119). Qualitatively, the population went from alcohol use in excess (8-15; World Health Organization et al., 2001) to an area of low risk/abstinence (0-7). Nevertheless, the model intervention error was 40.5%, PSS = .405, i.e., the probability of attendants on the TASEVAL programme with a post-intervention superiority score over the mean pre-intervention population is .405. In other words, around 40.0% of attendants continue to use alcohol after intervention compared to the pre-intervention mean. Likewise, the results also showed (see Table 3) significant effects of the TASEVAL programme in reducing problematic drug use. This shows that participation in the TASEVAL intervention programme reduces problematic drug use by 14.4% (r = -.144).

As for the PROSEVAL intervention programme, the results exhibited a non-significant effect in both alcohol and drug use (see Table 4). It is worth noting that post-intervention the offenders, M = 7.56 [5.46, 9.66], are in the region of alcohol use in excess (the 95% confidence interval has 8-15) and M = 1.40 [0.77, 2.03] in the level risky drug use (1-2 risky consumption).

Incremental Effect of TASEVAL/PROSEVAL Intervention Programmes on the Reduction of Recidivism

A significant association between recidivism (yes vs. no) and the intervention programme (TASEVAL and CS-60 vs. CS-60) was observed (see Table 5). The magnitude of the effect, incremental in the reduction of recidivism, was .146 (EII = .146), i.e., the TASEVAL intervention programme increases the non-recidivist rate for 14.6%, 95% CI [14.3%, 14.9%]. Likewise, a significant association between recidivism (yes vs. no) and the intervention programme (PROSEVAL and CS+60 vs. CS+60) was observed (see Table 6). The magnitude of the effect, incremental in the reduction of recidivism, was .584 (EII = .584) i.e., PROSEVAL intervention programme increases the non-recidivist rate for 58.4%, 95% CI [57.1%, 59.7%].

Comparatively, the PROSEVAL intervention programme increases the non-recidivist rate (58.4%) to a significantly higher level (CIs do not overlap) than the TASEVAL intervention programme (14.6%).

Discussion

The aim of the study was, on the one hand, to analyse the recidivism of individuals sentenced for crimes against road safety to community service orders and people participating in the TASEVAL intervention programme (awareness and re-education activities) and the PROSEVAL intervention programme (awareness and re-education activities + psychotherapeutic intervention), and to establish comparisons. On the other hand, the aim was to study changes in alcohol and drug consumption in a sample of participants who attended the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL programmes and to analyse the criminological and accident-prone profile. Evaluations are vital to enhance the benefits of educational and behavioural interventions through the analysis of their impact on road safety. In order to evaluate road safety educational programmes, Ulleberg and Rundmo (2002) recommended that attitude scales should be applied before and after the programmes in order to determine whether the participants’ attitudes had changed. Furthermore, RSE intervention programmes and their treatments need proper evaluation of their effectiveness and monitoring of the effects they produce on criminal recidivism (Negredo & Pérez, 2019). In this sense, Kaur et al. (2023) reviewed studies on subsequent risky driving behaviours, recidivism, and crashes among drivers with a traffic violation and 56.0% of the studies involved intervention/evaluation and demonstrated a significant reduction in driving under the influence among study participants. Most of the programmes focus on driving under the influence of alcohol, since alcohol is one of the variables most closely related to crimes against road safety and recidivism (Lapham et al., 2011; Nochajski & Stasiewicz, 2006). Palmer et al., (2012) assessed the effectiveness of a specific programme on alcohol-impaired driving, finding a recidivism rate of 0% after 1 year for those who successfully completed the programme, compared to 13.9% for those who did not complete it, and 3.9% for the control group. Other research, based on a cognitive-behavioural orientation educational programme, found a 43.0% lower probability of reoffending during the following two years, compared to drivers who had only received sanctions (Mills et al., 2008). Other experiences aimed at DUI offenders that incorporate activities for improving the motivation to change showed that the risk of recidivism was lower in those subjects who completed the programme compared to those who did not complete it or did not participate (Robertson et al., 2009). Regarding public programmes, Lapham et al. (2006) evaluated a reintegration strategy implemented in Oregon, involving private agencies and including close supervision of traffic offenders, that extended judicial monitoring and involvement, emphasis on treatment, and the requirement of sobriety. The DUI Intensive Supervision Programme demonstrated success in reducing DUI recidivism, and its effectiveness was associated with a 48.0% reduction in re-arrests for impaired driving, a 54.0% reduction in re-arrests for driving with a revoked or suspended licence, and a 39.0% decrease in all other traffic convictions. These findings are consistent with results of the TASEVAL intervention programme, which showed a significant reduction in alcohol consumption after the programme’s implementation, though around 40% of TASEVAL intervention programme attendees do not benefit at all by reducing their alcohol consumption. Surprisingly, the PROSEVAL programme did not show a significant effect, either on reducing unhealthy alcohol use or the reduction of problematic drug use. Even after the intervention, participants still had scores within the risk levels, indicating that they continued to have problems with substance abuse. So, the therapeutic effects of the techniques with a cognitive-behavioural approach aimed at intervening with underlying mental processes at a cognitive, emotional, and behavioural level were null. Bearing in mind the significant prevalence of substance-related and addictive disorders and behavioural addictions among traffic offenders (Fariña et al., 2023), the therapeutic techniques should focus directly on these disorders and addictions. As this intervention is based on simple advice and education of the attendee, these attendees need to undergo intervention through counselling and continued follow-up and, for those with scores > 20, treatment for alcohol dependence (World Health Organization et al., 2001). However, it must be taken into account that not all attendees were convicted of offences involving alcohol. In this study, the criminological and accident-prone profile of the participants has been identified, reinforcing the suspicion that many have problems with alcohol as they have a recurrence of infractions of this type. These findings coincide with those reported by previous studies (Escamilla et al., 2023), that demonstrated a certain vulnerability to developing mental health problems such as dependence on alcohol and other substances. Furthermore, these results indicate the high incidence of traffic accidents in convicted persons, which coincides with the results of the study by Faílde-Garrido et al. (2022), which demonstrated that suffering from traffic accidents is a predictor of road crime. Elvira et al. (2021) studied the repercussions of the law against drinking and driving penalties in the family context, through a project aimed at a harm-reduction strategy for families, recognising them as a space for rehabilitation.

A behavioural change was observed when the offenders’ experiences in health units were brought into the home, allowing families to perceive the impact of project activities on the offender, directly influencing awareness of the damage caused by driving under the influence of alcohol. In this sense, the incorporation of community based participation in promoting RSE also suggested that community empowerment and participation can be instrumental in improving road safety and community health. For instance, greater understanding of the use of helmets by acquaintances, family members, neighbours, and health centre staff may positively impact the adoption of this preventive behaviour (Babazadeh et. al., 2019). New proposals for hands-on advanced driving training programmes focused on training vehicle skills have become popular and are in high demand among adolescent offenders, but their lack of scientific support means that they are not easily accessible. Wang et al. (2020) described the effectiveness of these types of programmes, reporting no crash-reducing effect, relative to standard brief classroom sessions or basic RSE workshops, on young drivers charged with a traffic infraction.

More recently, programmes built on mindfulness-based interventions have also been used with traffic offenders (Baltruschat et. al., 2021) to evaluate participants’ driving behaviour through a driving simulation, as well as self-reported emotional regulation, both before and after the intervention. The results were promising and provided initial evidence of a behavioural change in recidivist offenders following the programme, but also identified that participants benefitting from it showed improved performance during risky driving situations and had fewer accidents. By taking into account therapeutic programmes focused on promoting a change in behaviour, Moxley-Kelly et al. (2019) evaluated a brief motivational interviewing workshop versus an advice control group intervention and it was found that the behavioural intervention reported better outcomes than the control group, creating a significant decrease in impaired-driving recidivism. Regarding the effectiveness of motivational counselling in combination with a community service component plan, a significant reduction in court-recorded driving offences over a 12-month period following such a programme was observed (Nirenbergni et al., 2013). Moreover, the recidivism rates for alcohol-related driving offences following this reintegration intervention were lower than rates expected after receiving a simple educational intervention. Such an evidence is in line with the results of the application of the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL programmes. The effectiveness on recidivism for impaired driving was significant for both. In both cases, the combination of the highly stimulating community service experience with the techniques of motivational interviewing aimed at enabling the participant to make direct and relevant connections between vicarious trauma experience and risky driving provides an optimal pathway for provoking changes in high-risk behaviour. A recent systematic review (Razaghizad et al., 2021) concluded that motivational interviewing and reintegration programmes (including RSE&DI programmes, community service) are able to prevent DUI in prior offenders, and driver education programmes can increase their knowledge, whereas only drug abuse prevention substance abuse treatment and driver rehabilitation programmes are able to prevent DUI—with, however, a very low certainty of evidence. The literature review definitely points toward the adoption of comprehensive strategies and is consistent with the research of this study in which interventions addressed at working with a motivational approach and at a cognitive, emotional, and behaviour level have proven to be robustly effective. Likewise, the results obtained in this research address the need to implement, in the area of recidivism, a rehabilitation system that focuses on people with serious problems with alcohol and other substances in order to prevent them from driving in these conditions that can be fatal for themselves and others. Considering the encouragement of policies applied to the area of road safety and traffic accident prevention as critical for the well-being of humanity, this study emphasised the importance of targeting more holistic interventions with young people and adolescents, as well as persistent offenders, due to the high prevalence of impaired driving among these population categories. These policies and public interventions, such as the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL programmes, have emerged from the spirit of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals by emphasising the importance of setting performance targets and monitoring progress towards achieving regulatory road safety objectives, undertaking to halve the number of traffic accidents and deaths involving drivers who consume alcohol, and/or achieving a reduction in those related to other psychoactive substances by 2030 (United Nations, 2016).

Conclusions

The present study supports the effectiveness of the TASEVAL and PROSEVAL intervention programmes in preventing traffic offence recidivism. Attending the TASEVAL programme is shown to positively influence the avoidance of recidivism in crimes against road safety, with this being found to be significantly lower with sentenced or convicted drivers who participated in this programme compared to those who completed a different community service programme. Likewise, PROSEVAL programme has been shown to positively influence the avoidance of recidivism in crimes against road safety, with this being shown to be significantly lower with sentenced or convicted drivers who participated in this programme compared to those who completed a different community service programme. TASEVAL and PROSEVAL interventions have proven to be effective in reducing traffic offence recidivism and, consequently reducing danger on the roads. In this respect, both programmes contribute to road safety and traffic accident prevention as part of the 11th SDG strategy for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes the access to safe, affordable, accessible, and sustainable transport systems provided for all through the improvement of road safety.

Limitations of the Study and Further Research

The findings of this study should be seen in the light of some limitations. Firstly, the recidivism data correspond to recidivism punished with alternative sentencing to imprisonment. No other type of sanction could be obtained, such as, for example, financial sanctions for crimes against road safety. Secondly, there is only a small sample of subjects for the evaluation of the effectiveness of TASEVAL and PROSEVAL interventions to study the change in substance consumption. The greatest difficulty encountered was the COVID-19 pandemic, which has prevented the completion of post-test protocols. To achieve this, offenders’ willingness to attend the intervention programme at the beginning and at the end of the interventions and complete the questionnaires is required. This decreased the number of people accessing it, generally due to mobility difficulties. Another aspect to take into account is that the people in this study are governed by Spanish laws, so the results should be taken with caution when comparing them with people subject to different laws.