Review and Assessment of Designated Driver Programs as an Alcohol Countermeasure Approach

Apsler, Robert; Harding, Wayne M.; Goldfein, Jamie · 1987 · ROSA P / United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This 1987 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) addresses the lack of comprehensive data regarding Designated Driver Programs (DDPs) in the United States. As DDPs proliferated in drinking establishments as a low-cost, voluntary countermeasure to alcohol-related crashes, there was no substantive research on their operational characteristics, effectiveness, or potential unintended consequences. The study aimed to identify formal DDPs nationwide, describe their features, and investigate informal designated driver activities within membership organizations such as fraternities and veterans groups. The researchers employed an exploratory methodology due to the autonomous nature of DDPs and limited resources. Using a "snowball" sampling technique, they contacted knowledgeable sources, including state highway safety representatives, activist groups, and industry associations, to compile a list of 431 alleged DDPs. From this list, 40 traditional drinking establishments and five membership organizations with formal programs were interviewed via telephone. Additionally, 54 membership organizations across seven cities were contacted to assess informal activities. The study included site visits to four establishments to observe operations and interview staff and patrons. Data collection focused on program structure, incentives, eligibility requirements, and perceived impact. The findings revealed that while DDPs share general principles—requiring one sober driver per party—participation rates were consistently low. Most programs offered minimal incentives, such as free non-alcoholic beverages, and used identification methods like buttons. Over half of the programs imposed eligibility restrictions, such as minimum party sizes. The study found little evidence of informal designated driver activity in membership organizations. Anecdotal data suggested potential negative side effects, including reduced tipping by designated drivers and increased difficulty for servers in monitoring intoxication levels among companions. Furthermore, it remained unclear whether designated drivers actually performed the driving or if the programs encouraged companions to consume more alcohol. The authors concluded that while DDPs are inexpensive and offer public relations benefits, their current implementation yields few designated drivers and may not significantly reduce drunk driving. They recommended that establishments increase participation by offering larger incentives, actively soliciting patron involvement, removing eligibility restrictions, and reducing the stigma associated with sobriety. The report emphasizes that further rigorous research is needed to evaluate the actual effectiveness of DDPs in reducing DWI incidents and to determine best practices for program design.

Key finding

Designated driver programs operated by drinking establishments produced relatively few designated drivers despite being inexpensive to implement.

Methodology

mixed_methods

Sample size: 431

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation