Use of Intermediaries in DWI Deterrence. Volume 1, Phase 2 Report: Development of Intermediary Programs
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 report, produced by National Capitol Systems, Inc. for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), addresses the persistence of driving while intoxicated (DWI) despite existing legal sanctions and educational campaigns. The research investigates the feasibility of using "intermediaries"—individuals present in drinking situations such as bartenders, service personnel, friends, and family members—to intervene and prevent impaired drivers from operating vehicles. The project aimed to identify high-potential target clusters of drinkers and intermediaries and to develop prototype programs to encourage intervention. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I involved a comprehensive review of literature on DWI epidemiology, psychosocial characteristics of drinkers, and previous intervention studies, alongside an analysis of national survey data. This analysis identified two primary target clusters: service personnel in neighborhood bars targeting adult males, and friends/family members in social settings targeting youth and young adult males. Phase II focused on developing specific intervention programs for these clusters and assessing feasibility through data collection. This included focus groups and interviews with bartenders and bar managers in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, as well as consultations with trade associations representing beverage establishments. The findings from Phase I indicated that young males under 30 were disproportionately involved in DWI accidents, and that a majority of DWI trips originated from public drinking places. Although public acceptance of intervention had grown, with 42% of the population reporting intervention by 1980, barriers such as social norms in bars and ambiguity in emergency situations remained. Phase II data collection revealed significant logistical challenges in engaging bartenders for training, evidenced by extremely low attendance at focus groups. However, participants confirmed that service personnel already monitor patrons for physiological and behavioral signs of impairment, such as slurred speech and motor coordination issues, and possess a sense of responsibility toward their establishments. Based on these findings, the report details two developed intervention programs. Program A targets bartenders and service personnel, comprising owner/manager support activities to create a pro-intervention environment, local training seminars for staff to improve recognition and intervention skills, and public information campaigns to increase patron receptivity. Program B targets friends and family members, utilizing public information campaigns, community-based citizen training, and actions by licensed beverage outlets to support intervention. The report concludes that while legal frameworks like Dram Shop laws offer limited impetus, stepped-up enforcement of state Alcoholic Beverage Control laws could further encourage intervention. The proposed strategies aim to increase intermediaries' willingness and ability to act by reducing fear of adverse consequences and providing practical techniques for preventing DWI trips.
Key finding
Two intervention programs were developed for service personnel and friends/family members, but focus group attendance by bartenders was extremely low, indicating significant logistical barriers to recruiting service personnel for training.
Methodology
mixed_methods
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).
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | rosap | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-23 |
| archive | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| chunk | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| embed | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-02 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 19 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
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.
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